According to the complaint, the Defendants reduced the housingservices provided to Plaintiffs without any decrease in rentcharged (an indeed, in most cases, an unlawfully high increase inrent charged). The housing services reduced were parking spaceswhich Plaintiffs had previously been granted and had been usingfor years.

According to the complaint, this action arose out of Defendants'systematic, companywide wrongful classification of Plaintiff andother similarly situated home health infusion and pediatric nursesas exempt from the overtime compensation requirements of the FLSAand IMWL. These persons worked as registered nurses for Defendantsproviding health care infusion and pediatric services to patientsin their homes.

"I am likely to deny the defense's motion, so please move forwardwith discovery," U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said May 26.

Koh indicated that six of the seven claims are likely to survivethe motion to dismiss phase, and asked attorneys for both sides toconsider reducing the claims to four. She said narrowing the caseis important, as its complexity, involving contract breaches inseveral states as well as federal claims and the enormous numberof contracts the court will be forced to consider could makeprompt adjudication impossible.

"I don't want to prejudice either side, but I want you to makethis humanly feasible," Koh said.

Anthem attorney Craig Hoover said he was reluctant to agree toanything until the ruling is issued, and until the July 11deadline for adding plaintiffs had passed.

"We don't want to submit identical papers just to force you toread them, but we also don't want you looking at a tiny slice ofthe pie," Hoover said.

Koh said the complexity and lack of precedents in data breachclass actions made it a difficult case. "We are going to have toaddress a lot of novel issues," she said.

The Anthem data breach, which the company disclosed in February2015, involved more than 37 million records from the company'scomputer system, affecting an estimated 80 million people.

The cyberattack is believed to have been carried out by China,though the country denies it.

Anthem's computer database has personal and health information onabout 80 million current and former clients, Koh said. It was notthe first such attack on Anthem. In 2009, about 600,000 customersof Wellpoint, Anthem's former trade name, "had their personalinformation and protected healthcare information compromised dueto a data breach," Koh said.

The Department of Health and Human Services fined Anthem $1.7million in 2013 for violations of data security.

In 2014, the federal government warned Anthem and other healthcare-companies of the possibility of more cyberattacks and advisedthem to take appropriate measures, including data encryption andenhanced password protection.

Consumers claim Anthem and its affiliates did not heed thewarnings, and allowed hackers to extract massive amounts of datafrom its database from December 2014 to January 2015.

Anthem said it stopped the cyberattacks by Jan. 31, 2015.

Cybersecurity company Mandiant, which Anthem hired to assist itsresponse to the data breach, released a report in July 2015 thatsaid "Anthem and [its] affiliates [had] failed to take reasonablemeasures to secure the [personal and health information] in theirpossession."

Though Anthem publicly disclosed the data breach in February 2015,many customers said that were not personally informed until March2015, if at all. They also said Anthem failed to disclose whetherit has made any changes to its security practices to preventanother cyberattack.

Multiple lawsuits were transferred and consolidated in spring2015. In June 2015, a multidistrict litigation judicial panelissued a transfer order and selected Koh. On Feb. 14, she removedthree Anthem entities and partially removed seven more, with leaveto amend. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, BlueCrossBlueShield of Tennessee and Highmark West Virginia were dismissed.

Plaintiffs' attorney Eve Cervantez declined to comment after thehearing, as did Hoover.

BAYLOR SCOTT: Faces "Sabatelli" Suit Over Age Discrimination------------------------------------------------------------Frank Sabatelli, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Baylor Scott & White Health and Scott &White Clinic, Case No. 1:16-cv-00596-RP (W.D. Tex., May 22, 2016),arises out of the Defendant's alleged unlawful age discrimination.

The Defendants operate a non-profit, multispecialty academicmedical center in Texas.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required and/orpermitted Plaintiff to work at their adult entertainment club inexcess of 40 hours per week, but refused to compensate them at theapplicable wage and overtime rate.

The lawsuits seek compensatory, consequential and punitivedamages, as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard for safetyof patients, to whom Pradaxa (TM) was promoted and sold for use,and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' recklessdisregard for patient safety, in violation of the ConnecticutProducts Liability Act.

The Defendants were engaged in the business of designing,licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/orintroducing into interstate commerce, either directly orindirectly through third parties or related entities, theprescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa (TM),throughout the State of Connecticut. Pradaxa (TM) helps to preventplatelets in blood from sticking together and forming a bloodclot.

BRIDGECARE INC: Able Home Seeks Certification of TCPA Class-----------------------------------------------------------Able Home Health, LLC, asks the Court to enter an orderdetermining that the action titled ABLE HOME HEALTH, LLC, onbehalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v.BRIDGECARE, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-05568 (N.D.Ill.), may proceed as a class action against Bridgecare.

Plaintiff defines the classes as:

For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Bridgecare, Inc. promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Bridgecare, Inc. promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV, alleging private nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Bridgecare, Inc. promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

The Plaintiff further asks that it be appointed classrepresentative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLCbe appointed counsel for the class.

CARESOUTH HHA: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Sowder" Suit Says----------------------------------------------------------------Ryan Sowder, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Caresouth HHA Holdings, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-00906(M.D. Ten., May 19, 2016), is brought against the Defendants forfailure to pay overtime wages for all hours work over 40 per week.

CHILDREN'S NATIONAL: Judge Remands Data Breach Class Action-----------------------------------------------------------Sulina Gabale, Esq. -- sgabale@reedsmith.com -- Michael O'Neil,Esq. -- michael.oneil@reedsmith.com -- and Paul Bond, Esq., ofReed Smith LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that just daysafter the Supreme Court's ruling in Spokeo v. Robins, the highlyanticipated decision is already impacting data breach classactions across the country. The defendant in the Spokeo casecontended that the plaintiff had suffered no concrete injury, andthat a mere statutory violation is not enough of an injury to giveplaintiffs constitutional standing to sue in federal court. TheSupreme Court agreed that plaintiffs must show more than atechnical violation of consumer protection law to establishstanding, but also that, in certain circumstances, the violationof a "procedural right" amounts to a concrete injury.

Recently, a federal judge in Maryland remanded a putative classaction in Khan v. Children's National Health System, No. 8:15-cv-02125, May 19, 2016 (U.S.D.C. of Maryland) [link to Marylanddecision]. The action alleged that the company violated stateprivacy laws by allowing a data breach to occur in 2014, duringwhich patient personal information was released.

In his opinion, Judge Chuang decided that the plaintiff patientfailed to show how the hackers' possession of her personalinformation "has diminished its value" or that she suffered a lossof privacy that is in itself an injury. Citing to Spokeo, JudgeChuang held that the plaintiff had not suffered a concrete injury(that is required even in the context of a statutory violation),and thus, lacked Article III standing in federal court. Notably,the opinion pointed out that the majority of district courts facedwith the issue of Article III standing in data breach actionsfollow the same pattern of finding that, where there is nospecific misuse of the data in question, the increased risk ofidentity theft does not confer standing. As the case had beenremoved from state court, Judge Chuang remanded it.

Although lower courts have just started to apply Spokeo, there'sno doubt that we will see an increasing number of data breachclass action defendants wielding the high court's recent decisionto their benefit.

Chinese-American Planning is a home care provider that servicesNew York, NY 10013.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

CITY UNIVERSITY OF NY: Sued in N.Y. Over Racial Discrimination--------------------------------------------------------------Carmalita Taylor Thomas v. The City University of New York, CaseNo. 1:16-cv-03730-LTS (S.D.N.Y., May 19, 2016), arises out of theDefendant's unlawful employment practices on the basis of race inviolation of the Civil Rights Act.

The City University of New York is a public university system ofNew York City, and the largest urban university in the UnitedStates.

COMMUNITY EDUCATION: "Giles" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages---------------------------------------------------------------Aaron Giles, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, and on behalf of the general public v. CommunityEducation Centers, Inc. and Does 1 through 30, inclusive, Case No.BC621130 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaidminimum wages, overtime compensation and damages pursuant to theCalifornia Labor Code.

COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Appeals Reverses Class Action Ruling-----------------------------------------------------------Keith Paul Bishop, Esq. -- kbishop@allenmatkins.com -- of AllenMatkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP, in an article for TheNational Law Review, reports that in Luther v. CountrywideFinancial Corp., 195 Cal. App. 4th 789 (2011), the trial courtruled that state courts do not enjoy concurrent jurisdiction whena class action meeting the definition of a "covered class action"under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (aka"SLUSA") did not involve a "covered security" as also defined bySLUSA (the definitions of both these terms can be found in Section16(f) of the '33 Act). The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that"an intent to prevent certain class actions does not tell us thatthis class action, or all securities class actions must be broughtin federal court." At the time, Mr. Bishop observed:

The holding in Luther opens the state courthouse door to classaction plaintiffs with '33 Act claims when the securities involveddo not meet the definition of "covered securities". It remains tobe seen whether plaintiffs will rush in and whether other courtswill agree that the door is open.

Five years later, we have some answers. First, the plaintiffs bardid rush in. According to a recent petition for certiorari filedwith the U.S. Supreme Court on May 25:

In the 12 years between SLUSA and Countrywide, only 6 classactions alleging Section 11 claims were filed in California statecourts -- an average of one case every two years. In the 5 yearsafter Countrywide, at least 38 class actions alleging Section 11claims were filed in California state courts -- an average of morethan seven cases every year. Fourteen were filed in 2015 alone.

Second, the courts are not in agreement. According to the samepetition:

Federal district courts in removal cases have divided bitterlyover the question presented. Because of the procedural roadblocksto review of remand orders, federal appeals courts are unlikely torule on, let alone resolve, the conflict. Absent this Court'sguidance, the district courts will remain in disarray with no endin sight.

The petition was filed by Boris Feldman and his team at WilsonSonsini Goodrich & Rosati in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County EmployeesRetirement Fund et al.

The Plaintiffs also ask for an order preliminarily approving thesettlement of the class action as fair and reasonable, approvingthe form and method for providing class-wide notice, andscheduling a hearing at which these will be considered: requestfor final approval of the proposed settlement, any objectionsfiled, incentive awards to the named plaintiffs, and entry of aFinal Order.

The Motion has been presented to the Defendants, who do notoppose, the Plaintiffs tell the Court.

For the purpose of the settlement, the parties agree to thecertification of this settlement class:

All persons with addresses in Nebraska against whom Defendants filed a county court collection complaint in the form of Exhibit C after January 1, 2008, for purposes of the NCPA, and after December 18, 2010, for purposes of the FDCPA (ii) which sought to recover attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and costs, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 25-1801 (iii) where CMS did not personally provide the ninety-day presentation of the claim (iv) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt which, as shown by the nature of the alleged debt, defendants' records, or the records of the original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. (The Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 25-1801 Class)

AND

(i) All persons with addresses in Nebraska upon whom Defendants served a county court collection complaint in the form of Exhibit A after January 1, 2008, for purposes of the NCPA, and after December 18, 2010, for purposes of the FDCPA (ii) which sought to recover prejudgment interest pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 45-104 (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt which, as shown by the nature of the alleged debt, Defendants' records, or the records of the original creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. (The Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 45-104 Class)

CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims--------------------------------------------------------------Christopher Seri, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. Crosscountry Mortgage, Inc., c/o itsStatutory Agent David L. Firestine and Michael Crawford d/b/aDirect Source, Case No. 1:16-cv-01214-DAP (N.D. Ohio., May 19,2016), seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of makingunsolicited telemarketing calls to the phones of consumersnationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by theirconduct.

The Defendants operate a full service mortgage lending companythat offers a variety of home purchase, refinance, and home equityproducts, and is licensed as a mortgage lender in 49 states.

CUSTOM AIR: Faces "King" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages----------------------------------------------------------------Anthony King, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Custom Air Trucking, Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive,Case No. BC620732 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 19, 2016), is broughtagainst the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages inviolation of the California Labor Code.

DBHV: Faces "Lofstock" Suit in D.N.J.-------------------------------------John Lofstock, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, v. DBHV also known as: Collection Bureauof the Hudson Valley, Inc., the Defendant, and John Does 1-25,Case No. 2:16-cv-02715-CCC-MF (D.N.J., May 13, 2016). The assignedJudge is Claire C. Cecchi.

According to the complaint, the Defendants boasted about theemployment prospects of DeVry University graduates to investorsand students alike, emphasizing that 90% of DVU graduates obtainedemployment in their field of study within six months of graduationand that DVU graduates' salaries one year after graduation were15% higher than the average or median salaries of graduates withbachelor's degrees from all other colleges and universities.However, on January 27, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)filed suit against DeVry and DeVry University accusing them ofdeceptively advertising the benefits of obtaining a bachelor'sdegree at DeVry University. Specifically, the FTC complaintcharges that Defendants' claim that 90% of DeVry Universitygraduates actively seeking employment landed jobs in their fieldof study within six months of graduating was deceptive.

DeVry provides educational services worldwide through a number ofsubsidiaries, including DeVry University ("DVU" or "DeVryUniversity"), one of the largest degree-granting higher educationsystems in the United States.

DOLLAR TREE: "Stacy" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.----------------------------------------------------------Sherika Stacy, on behalf of herself and similarly-situatedindividuals, the Plaintiff, v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.,Defendant, Case No. 16-64328-CA-20, was removed from 17th JudicialCircuit Court in Broward County, to the U.S. District Court forthe Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The SouthernDistrict Court assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-61032-WJZ to theproceeding. The assigned Judge is William J. Zloch.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay for allhours worked, failed to pay for hours worked at the appropriaterates, which resulted in failure to pay all hourly and overtimewages owed, failure to provide mandatory meal and rest breaks,failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure totimely pay all wages to separated employees, and failure toreimburse for all business-related expenses.

Dynamic Home provides hospital quality care in the comfort of yourown home throughout the great Houston, Texas, area.

Matthew Tiger brought the lawsuit on behalf of himself and twoputative classes of similarly situated persons who purchaseddietary supplements manufactured by the defendants DSN and PBBTrademark Holdings, LLC (PBB). Tiger alleged that the defendantsuse false and misleading marketing and packaging to deceivecustomers into believing their products are steroids. Count I ofthe complaint is an action for violation of the Florida Deceptiveand Unfair Trade Practices Act. Count II is an action for unjustenrichment. During discovery, DSN filed a motion for orderdirecting release of cable subscriber information.

Judge Smith ordered as follows:

(1) DSN shall serve a copy of the order on Bright House Networks, LLC (BHN).

(2) BHN shall have five business days from the date that the order is served on it to notify the subscriber of IP address 71.43.72.10 of the subpoena and the order.

(3) The subscriber shall have 21 days from the date of service to file any motions in this Court contesting the subpoena (including a motion to quash or modify the subpoena).

(4) The parties may only use the subpoenaed information to litigate the claims and defenses in this lawsuit, and for no other purpose.

A full-text copy of Judge Smith's May 24, 2016 order is availableat https://is.gd/UdJk4j from Leagle.com.

FACEBOOK INC: BIPA Amendment May Help Win Class Action------------------------------------------------------Cale Guthrie Weissman, writing for Fast Company, reports that atleast, that might be what is about to happen in Illinois. One ofthe strongest state digital privacy statutes may soon be gutted.Known as the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), thisIllinois state law expressly forbids companies from collectingpersonal identifiers from people without informed consent. A newamendment is being pushed through that could dramatically changethe meaning of the law.

When it was first enacted in 2008, BIPA was meant to preventpeople's personal biological information from being collected bytechnology companies. This meant that if an online service wascollecting your physical data, it had to explicitly let you know.Over the last year, Facebook has been fighting a class actionlawsuit that alleges that its photo tagging program -- which scansdigital photos, and uses facial recognition to automaticallyidentify people -- is in direct violation of the Illinois law.

Facebook has been vigorously fighting this suit, claiming onmultiple occasions that it is without merit. Earlier in May, ajudge ruled against Facebook's motion to dismiss the case, meaningit would be brought to trial.

This latest amendment might change all that. Chris Dore, apartner at the law firm Edelson PC (which represents the classaction suit being brought against Facebook) explained to FastCompany that this change would essentially "carve out a huge chunkof it." In his estimation, the change would make it possible forcompanies to collect digital biometric data -- like facialtemplates -- without any consent at all. As Mr. Dore put it, thisamendment would take the teeth out of the privacy act.

It's a little complicated. The existing law didn't countphotographs as biometric identifiers, but it was disputed whether"photographs" included digital photographs or not. Additionally,the law said that analyzing "facial geometry" needed consent. Thenew change specifies that both digital and physical photographsare not subject to BIPA protections. Perhaps more significantly,the amendment specifically identifies biometric scanning assomething that happens in person, IRL -- which means scanning adigital photograph of someone's face online would no longer beillegal in Illinois without that person's consent.

It seems the amendment's backers are trying to pass it throughquietly; Notice how this is all happening on the eve of a holidayweekend -- the amendment was introduced on May 27 and the votecould happen as early as May 28. What's more, the Illinoislegislature was about to go on a break on May 30. The amendmentis tacked on a law that focuses on unclaimed property, notbiometric data -- which means legislators might not even realizethat they are voting for the BIPA amendment, too. It should benoted that the author of this change, Senator Terry Link, was oneof the original lawmakers behind BIPA.

If the amendment doesn't pass and Facebook loses the trial, thesocial network may have to change its facial recognition servicesfor everyone in Illinois.

The Silicon Valley judge will retire from the bench on June 3 tobecome Facebook's vice president and deputy general counsel forworldwide litigation.

Grewal has presided over class actions involving Google and othertech giants, hashed out discovery disputes for Apple v. Samsungand other patent cases, and handled hundreds of criminal and civilrights cases.

"He's had to deal with basically everything Facebook will probablysee," Grewal's former colleague Mansi Shah with the Valorem LawGroup said. "They've gotten lucky. He's going to be an asset tothem in ways they probably don't even know yet."

Grewal graduated from MIT with a Bachelor of Science beforeearning his law degree at the University of Chicago. He worked oncommercial litigation at Pillsbury Madison and focused onintellectual property, patent trials and appeals as an attorneywith Day Casebeer Batchelder & Madrid.

Grewal's background in science and engineering and his firm graspon intellectual property law led many Silicon Valley attorneys toagree to have him hear their patent cases.

"I think he's established himself as one of the leading patentjudges in Northern California," said Neel Chaterjee, with OrrickHerrington & Sutcliffe, who worked with Grewal at the South AsianBar Association of North America. "He's gotten a very high numberof consent cases. I think that's a real testament to people'sconfidence in his ability to arrive at fair and thoughtfulconclusions."

"He has great strengths beyond intellectual property," Cousinssaid. "He has many hundreds of cases that are not involvingintellectual property. Many of my interactions with him areoutside of that, as magistrate judges handling criminal cases."

And Grewal has kept his fellow judges up to date through his workon the National Magistrate Judges Committee, Cousins said.

Grewal is one of the few federal judges with a Twitter account,where he regularly tweets about his hometown's sports teams, theCleveland Browns and Cavaliers.

"His absence will be felt deeply, not just by the litigants but byhis colleagues, because he's a joy to be around," Cousins said. "Iknow we'll find no one with as much knowledge on the ClevelandBrowns."

Grewal also made sure young attorneys get the chance to strengthentheir skills at oral arguments. In March, he issued a ruling in apatent case involving microchips, ordering both parties to letyounger attorneys argue at least two of their six post-trialmotions.

"Who will try the technology cases of the future, when so fewopportunities to develop courtroom skills appear?" Grewal wrote inhis March 9 ruling.

Shah, who was mentored by Grewal when her law firm, Howrey, mergedwith Grewal's firm Day Casebeer in 2009, said Grewal understandsthe importance of giving young attorneys the chance to polishtheir courtroom skills.

"He wants to make sure our profession has a pipeline of greatattorneys in it," Shah said.

Aside from losing a judge with a great grasp of technology andpatent law, Shah said, Grewal's departure comes as somewhat of ablow to the South Asian community.

Grewal previously served as president of the South Asian BarAssociation -- North America and the South Asian Bar Association -Northern California.

South Asians are one of the least-represented minority groups onthe federal judiciary, according to the Center for AmericanProgress.

When Grewal clerked for retired Federal Circuit Appeals CourtJudge Arthur Gajarsa about 15 years ago, Gajarsa said he knewGrewal was destined for great things.

"I always knew he would go on to do bigger and better things,"Gajarsa said. "As a judge, you always hired people you knew weresmarter than you, and they made you look good."

Gajarsa said Grewal has a calling for public service and he mayreturn to the courts as a higher-ranking judge some day.

He said the pay scale for a district court judge, around $200,000per year, doesn't compare with the earning potential for a privatesector attorney, especially in Silicon Valley.

"I think Paul stepping down from the court is a big loss to thefederal system," Gajarsa said. "He was essentially one of the bestthat they had. Attracting people of Paul's character to the benchis very important."

FAIR HAVENS: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved from Jud. Cir. to S.D. Fla.---------------------------------------------------------------Flor Rodriguez, and other similarly situated individuals, thePlaintiff, v. Fair Havens Center, LLC, a Florida Limited LiabilityCompany, the Defendant, Case No. 16-004468-CA-01, was removed from11th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Florida (Miami). The Southern District Court assignedCase No. 1:16-cv-21707-RNS to the proceeding. The Assigned Judgeis Robert N. Scola, Jr.

Board members allegedly breached their fiduciary duties becausethe deal to sell to First Mid-Illinois, announced April 26,resulted in an "inadequate" price and a "grossly unfair" mergerprocess. The cash and stock transaction is valued atapproximately $90 million, the suit claims.

Defendants include First Clover Leaf president and CEO Dave Kuhl,as well as board chairman Gerard Schuetzenhofer and board membersKenneth Highlander, Gary Niebur, Dennis Terry, Mary Westerhold,Joseph Gugger, Mona Best Haberer and Joseph Stevens. The banksare also named in the suit.

The suit claims the deal provides that shareholders may elect toreceive either a .495 share of First Mid-Illinois common stock pershare of First Clover Leaf common stock or $12.87 in cash pershare of First Clover common stock -- "subject to proration suchthat 25 percent of First Clover shares will be exchanged for cashand 75 percent for First Mid-Illinois stock."

"The agreed upon consideration is inadequate in light of FirstClover's intrinsic value and stand-alone alternatives goingforward," the suit claims.

It further states that First Clover Leaf had been performing welland "was poised for success."

The suit cites an April 28 article in Capital Cube that states thebank is "undervalued," and has done better than its overall peergroup.

Plaintiffs claim that board members compounded their allegedbreaches by agreeing to deal protections that unreasonably favorFirst Mid-Illinois, and which preclude other bidders from makingsuccessful competing offers.

-- a provision that provides First Mid-Illinois with threebusiness days to match any competing proposal in the event one ismade;

-- information rights that require First Clover Leaf to sharehighly sensitive information about potential competing proposalswith First Mid-Illinois; and

-- a provision that requires First Clover Leaf to pay First Mid-Illinois a termination fee of $3.6 million in order to enter intoa transaction with a superior bidder.

"These provisions substantially and improperly limit the Board'sability to act with respect to investigating and pursuing superiorproposals and alternatives including a sale of all or part ofFirst Clover," the suit states. "The preclusive effect of thesedeal protection provisions thus exacerbates and aggravates theBoard's utter failure to value-maximizing pre-agreement marketcheck or auction process."

Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the vote on the proposed transaction, orin the event the deal is consummated, recover damages resultingfrom the defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 16-L-703.

FORD MOTOR: Baron & Budd Mulls Class Action Over ETB Problem------------------------------------------------------------The national law firm of Baron & Budd is investigating a potentialclass action lawsuit on behalf of owners of certain Ford vehiclesaffected by an electronic throttle body (ETB) problem that canresult in sudden stalls, risking the safety of the driver,passengers and other motorists and/or pedestrians on the road.

Owners of the following vehicles that have an ETB problem may beable to participate in a class action lawsuit against theautomaker:

A defective ETB can put a vehicle into what is known as "limphome" mode, where the vehicle can continue to move but at asignificantly lowered speed. Some consumers have reported thattheir vehicles not only stalled while in motion, but also surgedsuddenly during acceleration from a stop.

Ford agreed to repair many models that could have defective ETBsunder a special extended warranty program. However, the programdoes not include the models mentioned above.

"Auto defects can put many people at risk of serious injury oreven death," said Roland Tellis, head of the Consumer Class Actiongroup at the national law firm of Baron & Budd. "We will work tomake sure that Ford repairs all models that have a defective ETB -- not just a select few."

If you own one of the models of Ford vehicles listed above, pleasecall the national law firm of Baron & Budd at 1 (866) 700-8994 formore information on how we may be able to help.

About Baron & Budd, P.C.

The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C., with offices in Dallas, BatonRouge, New Orleans, Austin and Los Angeles, is a nationallyrecognized law firm with a nearly 40-year history of "ProtectingWhat's Right" for people, communities and businesses harmed bynegligence. Baron & Budd's size and resources enable the firm totake on large and complex cases. The firm represents individualsand government and business entities in areas as diverse asdangerous pharmaceuticals and medical devices, environmentalcontamination, the Gulf oil spill, financial fraud, overtimeviolations, deceptive advertising, automotive defects, truckingaccidents, nursing home abuse, and asbestos-related illnesses suchas mesothelioma.

The Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint on July 7, 2015.The Court noted that in the ensuing 91 days, the Plaintiffsneither moved for class certification nor requested additionaltime from the Court. As a result, the time for moving for classcertification under Rule 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure expired on October 6, 2015.

Hence, Judge Engelhardt denied as untimely the Plaintiffs' "Motionto Certify Class," which was filed on May 20, 2016, more thanseven months after the deadline. He opined that the Plaintiffshave not demonstrated good cause to excuse their untimeliness.

FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP, PA: Not Liable for Day Care Contamination Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Jan Hefler, writing for Philly.com, reports that a New Jerseyappellate court ruled on May 26 that a state agency and FranklinTownship are not liable for damages or claims due to their failureto prevent a children's day-care center from opening in acontaminated mercury thermometer factory a decade ago.

About 100 infants and children were exposed to toxic vapors linkedto brain and kidney ailments after they were enrolled in theKiddie Kollege day-care and nursery in Gloucester County between2004 and 2006.

The appeals panel reversed a 2010 lower-court ruling that thegovernment entities were negligent partly because they had issuedpermits to allow the center to open without a cleanup.

The lower court had ordered the state Department of EnvironmentalProtection and the township to pay $675,000 into a $1.5 millionmedical monitoring fund for the Kiddie Kollege children aftertheir parents filed a class-action lawsuit. The town also wasordered to pay $1.6 million in legal fees to the parents' fiveattorneys.

GENERAL CABLE: Dismissal of "Livonia" Suit Affirmed---------------------------------------------------The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit affirmed thedistrict court's dismissal of Livonia Employees' RetirementSystem's ("Livonia") complaint against General Cable Corporationand its officers, as well as the district court's denial ofLivonia's motion to amend the judgment.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's May 24, 2016 opinion isavailable at https://is.gd/R5gUu9 from Leagle.com.

In October 2012, and again a year later, General Cable Corporationannounced that it would reissue several public financialstatements because they included material accounting errors. Soonafter, Livonia initiated the class-action suit against GeneralCable, its CEO Gregory Kenny, and its CFO Brian Robinson forviolating sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Securities ExchangeAct and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. Livoniaasserted that each defendant acted at least recklessly in issuingor approving General Cable's materially false public financialstatements. The defendants countered that General Cable'smisstatements resulted from accounting errors and a theft schemein its Brazilian operations of which the defendants were unawareand that they promptly sought to remediate upon discovering them.Agreeing with the defendants, the district court dismissedLivonia's complaint with prejudice because it failed to pleadscienter adequately. The district court then denied Livonia'sRule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment, which included a requestto file an amended complaint. Livonia appeals both decisions.

GENERAL MOTORS: Exaggerated Miles Per Gallon in SUVs, Suit Says---------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action inLos Angeles claims General Motors exaggerated the miles per gallonon its 2016 Chevrolet Traverses, GMC Acadias and Buick Enclaves.

Porto Alegre, Brazil-based Gerdau is the latest Brazilian companywith shares traded in the United States to face actual orpotential lawsuits over securities fraud as a result of Braziliancorruption investigations.

Federal police in Brazil raided Gerdau offices in March 2015 andFebruary 2016 as part of Operation Zelot, a probe into tax fraudthrough which companies are alleged to have bribed tax revenueagents to issue favorable rulings.

Pomerantz is seeking investors in Gerdau ADRs from June 2, 2011and May 15, 2016 to participate in its suit. For it to proceed asa class action, a court must accept it as meeting a minimumcriteria.

Earlier in May, another New York firm, Bronstein, Gewirtz &Grossman LLC, launched an investigation into whether investors inthe company's ADRs suffered losses due to similar allegationsrelated to Gerdau's ongoing tax corruption case in Brazil.

The growing docket of securities fraud lawsuits follow probes thatuncovered a giant price-fixing, bribery and political kick-backscandal at state-led oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA in early2014.

GERDAU SA: July 25 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set-----------------------------------------------------------Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 26announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf ofpurchasers of Gerdau S.A. securities from June 2, 2011 through May15, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuitseeks to recover damages for Gerdau investors under the federalsecurities laws.

To join the Gerdau class action, go to the firm's website athttp://rosenlegal.com/cases-898.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or emailpkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for more informationon the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASSIS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAINONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING ATTHIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendantsissued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failedto disclose that (1) the Company was engaged in a bribery schemein collusion with Brazil's Board of Tax Appeals ("CARF"); (2)Gerdau had defrauded Brazilian tax authorities of roughly $429million in taxes; (3) Gerdau's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"),Defendant Andr‚ Bier Gerdau Johannpeter ("Johannpeter") and otherdirectors and employees of the Company had engaged in bribery,money laundering, and influence peddling; and (4) as a result,Gerdau's public statements were materially false and misleading atall relevant times. When the true details entered the market, thelawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish toserve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later thanJuly 25, 2016. A lead plaintiff is a representative party actingon behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Ifyou wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website athttp://rosenlegal.com/cases-898.htmlfor more information. You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen LawFirm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.comor kchan@rosenlegal.com

The Order noted that a status hearing was held in both Rivera v.Google, Case No. 16-cv-2714, and Weiss v. Google, Case No. 16-cv-2870. Judge Chang said that the Court and counsel discussedvarious topics during the status hearing.

First, the Court noted the need to notify the Illinois AttorneyGeneral of the potential constitutional challenge to the IllinoisBiometric Information Privacy Act. Google presents an alternativeargument to the effect that if the Act is interpreted in the waythat the Plaintiffs allegedly propose, then the Act violates theDormant Commerce Clause.

Second, as discussed during the status hearing, the Plaintiffswill not object to the defense later raising a California choice-of-law argument as to Plaintiff Weiss later in the litigation.

Third, the Plaintiffs' response to the dismissal motion is due byJune 1, 2016. The defense reply is due by June 17.

Fourth, in order to avoid duplicative filings, and because theRivera proposed class is a subset of the Weiss proposed class, theClerk's Office will terminate 16-cv-2870 and place the complaintin that case on the docket in 16-cv-2714 as another Complaint in16-cv-2714. The Plaintiffs' response will be in one filing onjust the one docket (16-cv-2714), and the same goes for thedefense reply and all future filings.

The lawsuit is a securities class action on behalf of all personswho purchased or otherwise acquired GoPro common stock issuedpursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and misleadingregistration statement and prospectus filed in connection with itsJune 26, 2014 initial public offering (IPO). On June 11, 2014,GoPro filed an amended registration statement on Form S - 1/A forthe Company's IPO, which the SEC deemed effective on June 25,2014, when the Company filed its Registration Statement on Form S-8 (Registration Statement). On June 26, 2014, GoPro filed itsProspectus on Form 424134, which forms part of the RegistrationStatement (Prospectus).

GoPro sells cameras that are designed for uses ranging fromextreme sports to professional photography and creating andediting videos. GoPro also sells software and has a mobile Appthat pairs with the cameras in which users can edit, manage, andshare their pictures and videos.

HARBOR VILLAGE: "Medina" Suit Moved to S. D. Fla.-------------------------------------------------Yesika Medina, and others similarly situated individuals, thePlaintiff, v. Harbor Village Inc., a Florida for ProfitCorporation and Robert G. Niznik, individually, the Defendants,Case No. 16-004481-CA-01, was removed from the 11th JudicialCircuit Court in and for Miami-Dade, to the U.S. District Courtfor the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The SouthernDistrict Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-21710-UU to theproceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Ursula Ungaro.

Prince Richard, an inmate currently incarcerated at MenardCorrectional Center, brought a civil rights action pursuant to 42U.S.C. Section 1983 for the deprivation of his constitutionalrights at Menard. He sues the Illinois Department of Corrections(IDOC), Gladyse Taylor, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., KimberlyButler, Doctor Trost, Nurse John Doe, and Counselor Payne forviolating his rights under the First, Eighth, and FourteenthAmendments. He seeks monetary damages, a CT scan, and class actioninjunctive relief in the form of a court order requiring all IDOCfacilities to install ladders on bunk beds.

Richard alleges that defendants subjected him to unconstitutionalconditions of confinement at Menard in violation of the EighthAmendment when they assigned him to a top bunk that lacked aladder and steps (Count I). That defendants exhibited deliberateindifference to his serious medical needs in violation of theEighth Amendment when they failed to treat the injuries hesustained after falling from the top bunk on January 18, 2015(Count II). That defendants exhibited deliberate indifference tohis serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendmentwhen they refused to issue him a low bunk or low gallery permitafter he fell from the top bunk on January 18, 2015 Count (III),and that defendants denied him access to the courts by ignoringhis grievances and thereby preventing him from exhausting hisadministrative remedies before bringing this action (Count IV).

Judge Rosenstengel dismissed plaintiff's counts I and IV withoutprejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may begranted. Count III is dismissed without prejudice againstdefendant Wexford Health Sources, Inc. for the same reason.

The Illinois Department of Corrections is dismissed with prejudicefrom the action. Count II is subject to further review againstdefendants Taylor, Payne, Wexford Health Resources, Trost, NursePractitioner John Doe and Butler. Count III is subject for furtherreview against Taylor, Payne, Trost, Nurse Practitioner John Doeand Butler. As to Counts II and III, the Court said plaintiff hasneither sought nor been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperisin the action, and the court will not automatically appoint theUnited States Marshal to effect service of process upon defendantsTaylor, Payne, Wexford Health Resources, Trost, and Butler.However, if plaintiff desires to request the appointment of theUnited States Marshal to serve process on these defendants,plaintiff shall file a motion for service of process at governmentexpense, within 35 days of the date of entry of the order.

Plaintiff is advised that he is under a continuing obligation tokeep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party informed of anychange in his address and shall be done in writing and not laterthan 7 days after a transfer or other change in address occurs.

Defendants are ordered to timely file an appropriate responsivepleading to the complaint.

Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), the action is referred toUnited States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson for furtherpre-trial proceedings, including a decision on plaintiff's motionfor recruitment of counsel and a plan for discovery aimed atidentifying defendant Nurse Practitioner John Doe. Further, theentire matter is referred to United States Magistrate JudgeWilkerson for disposition, as contemplated by Local Rule72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c), should all the partiesconsent to such a referral.

A copy of Judge Rosenstengel's memorandum and order dated May 20,2016, is available at http://goo.gl/VyujFOfrom Leagle.com.

Prince Richard, Plaintiff, Pro Se

INDIANAPOLIS, IN: Sued Over Prisoner Civil Rights Violation-----------------------------------------------------------MAURICE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. City of Indianapolis, in its official capacity, CaseNo. 1:16-cv-01238-SEB-MPB (S.D. Ind., May 19, 2016), is broughtagainst the Defendant for Prisoner Civil Rights violation.

City of Indianapolis is the capital of Indiana and the seat ofMarion County.

Maurice Young is a pro se plaintiff.

JENNY CRAIG: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Wage Class Action------------------------------------------------------------Daniel L. Messeloff, Esq. -- Daniel.Messeloff@jacksonlewis.com --of Jackson Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review,reports that in a case that could be of significant benefit toemployers in California and elsewhere around the country, theNinth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a ruling thatplaintiffs failed to satisfy the "commonality" requirementessential to a collective action on their wage-hour claim wherethey had the authority to edit the time entries that served as thebasis for their claim. Coleman v. Jenny Craig, Inc., 2016 U.S.App. LEXIS 7164 (April 6, 2016).

Plaintiff Hashonna Coleman brought suit against Jenny Craig, Inc.on behalf of herself and other current and former employees foralleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") andvarious California Labor Code sections providing for overtimepayments and premiums for failure to provide or pay for meal andrest periods. With respect to the proposed Meal and Rest BreakClass, Coleman alleged that Jenny Craig had a common practice offorcing hourly employees to miss meal breaks or take short or latemeal breaks, and that the payroll system only paid the(California) required premium when employees' timecards showed anentirely-missed meal break.

The evidence showed that Jenny Craig's uniform compensation systemwas not programmed to automatically pay employees the premiums forshort or late lunches, because employees were able to submit timeedit requests for premiums whenever their meal breaks were shortor late. The district court concluded that this feature of theCompany's payroll system did not amount to a policy or practice ofnon-payment of premiums for short of late lunches, becauseemployees themselves could edit and correct any time entries theybelieved did not accurately reflect their hours worked. Thedistrict court concluded that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the"commonality" requirement for class certification and therefore itdenied Plaintiff's motion to certify a class.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling and held that,for Coleman to show commonality on her claims, she must show acommon practice of Jenny Craig to force employees to take short orlate meal breaks, but that a common practice of simply not payingwage premiums, standing alone, is insufficient to show commonalityunder the FLSA and California statutes. Since the lower courtfound that Jenny Craig did not have a common practice of forcingemployees to take short or late meal breaks, the Ninth Circuitheld that the court was correct in finding that Coleman had notproven the existence of a common practice necessary to maintain aclass claim.

The pivotal fact upon which the class certification questionturned for the Ninth Circuit was that employees had theopportunity to edit their own time entries to ensure that theywere paid for time worked if they had short or late meal breaks.Any employer with a time keeping system which provides employeesthe opportunity to review, edit and certify their time entrieswill arguably be in a position to assert that fact as a defense toany collective action wage claims they may face.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Baby Power-Linked Ovarian Cancer-------------------------------------------------------------680 News reports that a Toronto lawyer is launching a class-actionlawsuit on behalf of women who have ovarian cancer linked to theuse of baby powder.

The lawsuit, filed by Paul Miller of Will Davidson LLP, comes inthe wake of several jury awards in the United States againstJohnson & Johnson.

A woman was recently awarded $55 million after being diagnosedwith cancer in 2011. She claimed to have used talc-based femininehygiene products for the better part of 40 years. A separate juryawarded the family of another woman who died of ovarian cancer in2013 $72million.

Mr. Miller says experts have confirmed a casual connection betweenthe baby powder and cancer when talc is found on biopsy slides.

"It's a terrible situation," Mr. Miller says in a release."Johnson & Johnson -- could there be a more trusted name?"

"There are two things you think of: baby power and baby shampoo.Those should be trusted products."

A handful of Canadian women, ranging in age from 40 to 60, havejoined the lawsuit, claiming to have used baby powder with talcfor the better part of 40 years.

JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Credit History-----------------------------------------------------------Naveed Dezfoli, individually, and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank and Does 1-100, Case No.BC621018 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 19, 2016), arises out of theDefendant's practice of providing derogatory and inaccuratestatements and information relating to the Plaintiff andPlaintiff's credit history to various credit reporting agencies.

JPMorgan Chase Bank is a multinational banking and financialservices holding company headquartered in New York City.

KERNERSVILLE, NC: Faces Class Action Over Sewer Service Rates-------------------------------------------------------------Michael Hewlett, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports thatthe town of Kernersville and the City-County Utilities Commissionovercharged town residents for sewer service for two and a halfyears, resulting in loss of $5 million, a class-action lawsuitfiled earlier in May alleges.

The town contracts with the City-County Utilities Commission toprovide sewer service to more than 8,000 people who either livewithin the town limits or just outside the town, according to thelawsuit.

The lawsuit said that town officials entered into an agreement in2011 that would lower sewer rates from 2.487 times the rate forWinston-Salem customers to 1.2 times the rate for town residents.It would be 1.5 times the rate for people outside the town limits.The commission agreed to transfer money from what is known as theRate Differential Fund to Kernersville.

Town officials and the utility commission had been working on anew agreement, but by Jan. 1, 2013, nothing had been settled, thelawsuit said. The agreement meant that on Jan. 1, the rate wouldgo to 1.2 times the rate Winston-Salem customers pay. Butaccording to the lawsuit, that did not happen.

"Upon information and belief, during 2013, 2014, and most of 2015,millions of dollars were improperly charged to and paid byKernersville sanitary sewer users," the lawsuit said.

And, the lawsuit said, money from the Rate Differential Fund wasnever transferred to Kernersville. In September 2015, the town'sboard of commissioners voted to reduce the rate to 1.6 times whatWinston-Salem customers pay. Plaintiffs said that rate still doesnot comply with the 2011 agreement.

Ron Hargrove, director of the City-County Utilities Commission,said the commission is just the administrator of the fund and hasno control over how that money is spent.

"All of that decision-making is by the town," he said. "Thedispute is between the town and the customers of that town."Town Manager Curtis Swisher and Town Attorney John Wolfe III didnot immediately return messages seeking comment.

Digoxin is s prescription drug that is used to treat mild tomoderate heart failure in adults, increase the heart contractingfunctions for pediatric patients with heart failure, and controlthe resting heart rate in adult patients with chronic atrialfibrillation.

Doxycycline monohydrate is a prescription antibiotic used intreating humans and animals.

The Defendants own and operate pharmaceutical companies thatmanufacture and distribute generic digoxin and genericdoxycycline.

Pow! Mobile, not a party here, is a mobile content provider thatmarketed a "reverse auction" game called "Bid and Win." In thistype of game, players bid on prizes, and whoever makes the lowestunique bid wins. Users could subscribe to Pow! Mobile's cell phonecontent service, and play by submitting bids via text message. Bidand Win's $9.99 monthly subscription charge was billed directly tothe subscriber's cell phone bill.

Defendant m-Qube, Inc. is a "connection aggregator." It marketsmobile games and other subscription-based content to the public.Defendant Mobile Messenger Americas, Inc. "built a computer'gateway' to each of the major wireless carriers (e.g., AT&T,Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile), allowing charities and businesses tosend and receive text messages with customers."

Both Mobile Messenger and m-Qube are "billing aggregators" whoserve as financial intermediaries between customers and contentproviders. Defendants' parent company is Messenger Global, Inc.

Margaret Wells, Richard Geier's wife, allegedly subscribed to themobile version of Bid and Win. According to defendants, Wellsaccepted Pow! Mobile's Terms and Conditions (the "Terms") uponsubscribing. Geier, however, counters that his wife neversubscribed to the service and thus didn't assent to the Terms. TheTerms include a clause compelling arbitration for "any controversy. . . arising out of or relating to a service agreement between"Pow! Mobile and its subscriber.

Without determining whether Wells agreed to the Terms, thedistrict court held that "defendants are not intended third-partybeneficiaries entitled to enforce the arbitration clause" and thusdenied defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

According to the Ninth Circuit, the signatory to the Terms agreesto waive all claims against the Company's suppliers. Therefore,the Company's suppliers are intended third-party beneficiaries ofthe Terms. Thus, if defendants are suppliers of the Company, theymay enforce the arbitration clause.

"Whether defendants may enforce the arbitration clause againstGeier requires two findings not made by the district court: DidWells assent to the Terms? And, are defendants Pow! Mobile'ssuppliers? We remand so that the district court can make thesedeterminations in the first instance," the Ninth Circuit says.

MAGELLAN: Sued for Denying Mental Health Coverage to Teens----------------------------------------------------------Psych-Appeal, Inc., Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and Zuckerman SpaederLLP have filed a class-action lawsuit against Magellan and BlueShield of California on behalf of adolescents suffering frommental health and substance use disorders. The suit alleges thatthe health insurers limit and deny coverage for outpatient andresidential treatment using strict guidelines that are createdinternally by Magellan.

"These guidelines are far more restrictive than the standards ofcare that are generally accepted within the mental healthcommunity," said Meiram Bendat, president of Psych-Appeal, Inc."When insurers develop criteria that distort or disregardgenerally accepted treatment standards, profitability trumpspatient safety."

The plaintiffs in the case include a father whose teenage son wasdenied residential treatment for substance abuse and majordepression, and a mother whose son was denied intensive outpatienttreatment for the same conditions.

MARRONE BIO: Settles Securities Class Action for $12 Million------------------------------------------------------------Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. (the "Company"), a leading providerof bio-based pest management and plant health products for theagriculture, turf and ornamental and water treatment markets, onMay 26 disclosed that the Company and other defendants, includingcertain of the Company's current and former officers anddirectors, have reached an agreement to settle the privatesecurities class action litigation consolidated in the U.S.District Court for the Eastern District of California onFebruary 13, 2015 as Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. et al v.Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. et al, Case No 2:14-cv-02571-MCE-KJN. The agreement is subject to review and approval by the courtafter notice and an opportunity to object are provided to theplaintiff class. The settlement agreement contains no admissionor concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or anyother defendant and includes a full release of claims. Theagreement provides for a settlement payment to the class of$12,000,000, which will be paid by insurance carriers.Accordingly, the settlement of these lawsuits will have no adverseimpact on the Company's financial position or operations.

About Marrone Bio Innovations

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. (MBII) -- http://www.marronebio.com-- aims to lead the movement to a more sustainable world throughthe discovery, development and promotion of biological productsfor pest management and plant health.

At the class certification hearing, Dr. Joseph Kalt offered anexpert opinion. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to exclude opinionsoffered by Dr. Kalt, arguing that the court must do an analysis ofDr. Kalt's report and proffered testimony under Rule 702 of theFederal Rules of Evidence and Daubert v. Merrell DowPharmaceuticals, Inc., and make a Daubert determination prior tothe class certification hearing. They maintain that the courtshould refuse to consider Dr. Kalt's opinions on classcertification under the standards of Rule 702 and Daubert.

Defendants respond that under the case law, no Daubert hearing isrequired prior to class certification, that plaintiffs' motion isa blatant misuse of the Daubert inquiry, and that none ofplaintiffs' arguments can fairly be described as focusing solelyon principles and methodology, rather than on the conclusions thatthey generate. Defendants maintain that the proper forum forconsidering the reliability of Dr. Kalt's methodology and thevalidity of his opinions is at the class certification hearingitself.

MDL 2467: Court Rules on Bid for Interlocutory Appeal-----------------------------------------------------Direct and indirect purchasers of drywall sue drywallmanufacturers, alleging that they entered into a conspiracy to fixprices and eliminate job quotes. Defendants in the presentantitrust claim are American Gypsum Company LLC, Eagle MaterialsInc., New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North American Inc., PABCO BuildingProducts, LLC, and CertainTeed.

On February 18, 2016, the court denied defendants' motions forsummary judgment as to all except CertainTeed.

District Judge Michael M. Baylson of the Eastern District ofPennsylvania granted, in part, and denied, in part defendants,'request.

Judge Baylson said, "Whatever this Court's decision on the classaction may be, Defendants have satisfied the three preconditionsfor interlocutory appeal for the conduit issue. At this juncture,this Court is considering postponing a final decision oncertification. Delaying the final decision until promptly afterthe class certification decision would allow the parties toconsolidate their requests (or oppositions) to the Third Circuitfor interlocutory appeal (assuming the Court grants the instantMotion). This consolidation may increase the likelihood that theThird Circuit would grant both motions."

"Also, the Third Circuit may render a decision in Valspar prior tothis Court's class-action certification decision. This wouldobviate the need for clarification on the conduit theory issue.And, if the Third Circuit affirms Valspar in in a precedentialopinion, this Court may reconsider its summary judgementdecision."

The court gives counsel the opportunity to submit a brief,expressing a preference for either an immediate decision or adelayed one.

MERCK: Law Firm Holds Conference to Rally Amicus Support--------------------------------------------------------Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that on May 26, thesecurities class action firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmannhosted a teleconference for members of the Council ofInstitutional Investors, a coalition of public and private pensionand benefits funds. The purpose of the call was to explain thestakes in North Sound Capital v. Merck, a case at the 3rd U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals that will inevitably deepen the circuitsplit on whether the filing of a securities class action tolls thestatute of repose for individual shareholders. It's an admittedlyarcane issue, but procedurally significant for investors who wantto opt out of securities class actions and bring their own claims.

As Bernstein Litowitz noted in its email invitation to Councilmembers, the four federal circuits to have opined on this issueare divided 2-2. The 3rd Circuit's decision "will break the tieamong the federal circuits and will likely be reviewed by theSupreme Court," the email said. (The justices actually agreed tohear a case presenting the statute of repose question in 2014 butdropped it when shareholders settled the underlying class actionagainst banks that underwrote mortgage-backed securitiesoriginated by IndyMac.)

Bernstein Litowitz is encouraging Council members to sign onto adraft amicus brief in the Merck case that, according to its email,has already garnered support from more than two dozen publicpension funds. (The brief supports North Sound's position thatindividual shareholders have the right to pursue opt-out casesbecause a parallel securities class action against Merck tolledthe statute of repose.) "It is essential," Bernstein Litowitzwrote, "to ensure the 3rd Circuit is aware of the institutionalinvestor community's perspective."

There is nothing wrong, of course, with rallying amicus support.Businesses do it all the time, through joint briefs from companieswhose interests are aligned or through litigation-savvy lobbyinggroups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the SecuritiesIndustry and Financial Markets Association. (SIFMA, in fact, hasalready filed an amicus brief at the 3rd Circuit in the Merckappeal, backing Merck's arguments that the trial judge blew itwhen she held individual investors could sue over allegedmisstatements issued more than five years before they filedcomplaints.)

Bernstein Litowitz has previously organized pension funds to bandtogether in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in importantsecurities class action cases, including Halliburton's assault onessential fraud-on-the-market theory and last year's Omnicaredebate over what constitutes an unactionable opinion. When thejustices were considering the statute of repose issue in theIndyMac case, the shareholder firm filed amicus briefs forinstitutional investors at both the certiorari and merits stages.As long ago as 2007, when the Supreme Court heard arguments overthe standard for intent to defraud in Tellabs v. Makor, BernsteinLitowitz represented a coalition of pension funds in an amicusbrief.

But the Merck case marks the first time the firm has spearheaded ajoint pension fund filing in a federal circuit court, according topartner Blair Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com -- who said BernsteinLitowitz has taken it upon itself to unify shareholders. "We arecoordinating the voice of institutional investors," he said.

But don't underestimate the emerging shareholder amicus movement.The business lobby has mastered the art of the swarm on litigationissues it cares about. Institutional investors are finallylearning what their opponents already know.

NCB MANAGEMENT: FDCPA Class Certification Sought in "Kaleel" Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ELIZABETH J. KALEEL, on behalfof plaintiff and the class members described herein v. NCBMANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-05566 (N.D. Ill.),asks the Court to enter an order determining that the Fair DebtCollection Practices Act action may proceed as a class actionagainst NCB.

The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class consisting of (a) allindividuals in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, (b) who were senta letter in the proposed form, (c) on or after a date one yearprior to the filing of this action and on or before a date 21 daysafter the filing of this action.

Ms. Kaleel further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,LLC be appointed counsel for the classes.

Jason Powlette and Karvia Hamilton, practicing Rastafarians, fileda civil rights action claiming, among other things, thatalterations to the New York State Department of Corrections andCommunity Supervision's (DOCCS) annual Religious Calendar for theyear 2013 (i) impaired their constitutional right to the freeexercise of their religious beliefs; (ii) violated theEstablishment Clause of the First Amendment; and (iii) violatedthe Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thedefendant, Cheryl Morris, conceded the alterations, but claimedthat they were undertaken as a result of valid penologicalconcerns, and only after consultation with experts in theRastafari religion. Morris moved for summary judgment on thebasis of qualified immunity.

Judge Failla found that Morris has demonstrated that it wasobjectively reasonable for her to believe, based on all of theinformation that she had sought and obtained, that it was lawfulfor her to address legitimate penological interests by removingNegus Day and adding the Battle of Adwa Victory to the 2013Religious Calendar. As a result, Judge Failla held that Morris isentitled to qualified immunity, and the plaintiffs' Free Exercise,Establishment Clause, and Equal Protection claims must fail.

A full-text copy of Judge Failla's May 23, 2016 opinion and orderis available at https://is.gd/D6cYZE from Leagle.com.

Cheryl Morris, Paul Guenette, Defendants, represented by Daniel A.Schulze, Attorney General of the State of New York, Michael J.Keane, Office of The Attorney General, Abigail Everett Rosner,Attorney General of the State of New York, Anna Hehenberger, NewYork State Office of the Attorney General & John Michael Schwartz,State of New York Office of the Attorney General.

The Indirect-Purchaser Plaintiffs seek certification of a damagesclass and an injunction class, each comprised of these persons andentities:

All persons and entities that purchased "Korean Ramen Noodles" anywhere in the United States [or such subset of the United States market as the Court may elect to certify] for their own use and not for resale, from March 1, 2003 through January 31, 2010. For purposes of this definition, "Korean Ramen Noodles" means Nongshim, Ottogi and Samyang branded bag, cup or bowl ramen, including fried, dried, fresh and frozen noodle products. Specifically excluded from this class are any Defendant; the officers, directors, or employees of any Defendant; any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and any affiliate, legal representative, heir, or assign of any Defendant. Also excluded are the judicial officers to whom this case is assigned and any member of such judicial officers' immediate family.

-- Damages class. IPPs seek to certify a damages class comprising all persons who purchased Ramen Products in the United States. IPPs contend that the California Cartwright Act should apply to the claims of all members of the damages class, or, at least to states that have repealed the Illinois Brick rule;

-- Alternative damages classes. If the Court determines that it should not apply the law of one state to the claims of members of a single multi-state class, IPPs alternatively seek to certify a damages class comprising all persons who purchased Ramen Products in six states (the states in which the proposed class representatives made their purchases); and

-- Injunctive class. Additionally, for the purposes of seeking injunctive relief pursuant to the Sherman Antitrust Act, IPPs seeks to certify an injunctive class comprising all persons who purchased Ramen Products in the United States.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 16, 2016, at 2:00p.m., to consider the Motion.

NRA GROUP: Must Respond to Class Certification Motion by June 7---------------------------------------------------------------The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois made a docket entry on May 24, 2016, in the case styledJoseph Bernal v. NRA Group, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-01904 (N.D.Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable GaryFeinerman.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's amended motion forclass certification is entered and continued. The Defendant mustrespond by June 7, 2016, and reply is due by June 28.

ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Faces Class Action Over Toll Road Fines----------------------------------------------------------TheNewspaper.com reports that a motorist is suing a localgovernment agency in California for intentionally luringunsuspecting motorists onto toll roads so that they could bebilled hundreds of dollars in fines. In a class action lawsuitfiled on May 23, Ebrahim H. Mahda says he found himself on theRoute 73 toll road on November 26, 2015, and, since he did nothave a FasTrak transponder, he received a demand that he pay $232weeks later in the mail. Toll booths were eliminated on OrangeCounty's toll roads in 2014.

"Defendants operate the toll roads in a way that constitutes anunfair business practice," Mr. Mahda's attorney, Michael J.Flannery, wrote to the court. "For example, there is virtually nosignage visible to drivers that clearly indicates that the driveris about to enter a stretch of road that will require anelectronic toll paying transponder (i.e., a FasTrak device).Drivers have a reasonable expectation that there will be a cash orcredit card payment option absent sufficient warning to thecontrary. Defendants' operate the toll roads in a manner thatmisleads and deceives drivers, unfairly leading them to incur tollcharges and penalties."

State Route 73, along with the 133, 241 and 261 toll roads, arerun by the Transportation Corridor Agency, which is a governmententity jointly operated by Orange County and the eighteen citiesnear the roads. The agency collected $241,672,000 in tolls lastyear, plus $32,067,000 in penalties. Those fines accounted for 13percent of revenue -- not counting the additional $17,798,000collected in monthly "account maintenance fees" charged tomotorists who failed to use the road often enough. The lawsuitonly focuses on the penalties, asking that they be refunded tomotorists. The toll road agency's fiscal year 2016 budget admitsthere is a problem that will be addressed.

"The agency also has additional initiatives planned for FY16 toattempt to address violations, such as signage enhancements,education to the rental car and tourism industries and workingwith rental car agencies so their customer's transactions will bepaid by the rental car agencies and not be characterized asviolations," the budget document states.

In Virginia, a similar lawsuit was filed after Transurban, anAustralian toll road operator, imposed $31,000 in penalties on amotorist who missed $50 in tolls. A federal judge called thesystem "grossly disproportionate." Earlier in May the judgecertified the class action settlement in the case. The Californiatoll roads could face a much broader legal attack that coulddeliver a crippling financial blow to the enterprise alreadystruggling under a massive debt load.

Eunice Dominguez et al. did not sue their employer, the LuxorHotel; they sued Iowa-based Ozone Solutions, which makes the bigmachines. All six women say they "have repeatedly sought medicalhelp [and] have missed considerable amounts of work due to thesymptoms of ozone exposure." They claim the company "knew thatthere were notable problems with the Ozone generators," but didnot disclose them.

"In short, the ozone generators are poisoning plaintiffs," theysay.

Ozone Solutions also maintains the Luxor's five ozone generators,but Dominguez says the generators often are broken, defectivelydesigned, do not work properly, and that the company has not beenable to fix the problem. Because ozone -- the oxygen molecule O3,rather than O2 -- is an unstable form of the element, it is apowerful oxidant, which makes it a good cleaner. Unlike O2, ozonesmells like chlorine and can damage mucous tissues, such as lunglinings. It is a primary ingredient of smog, and can exacerbateand cause respiratory illnesses.

Dominguez claims that Ozone Solutions worked with officials at theLuxor and its medical provider, Concentra to cover up the ozonepoisoning.

"Plaintiffs were repeatedly told that their conditions were merelyallergies," the complaint state. "Upon information and belief,Ozone Solutions was in communication with Luxor and Luxor'scontracted medical services provider Concentra to blame anypossible cause of the plaintiffs' consistent and similar medicalconditions on causes other than the Ozone generators. Uponinformation and belief, Ozone Solutions worked with Luxor in otherproceedings to defend and aggressively suppress any allegationthat the Ozone generators were the source of the plaintiffs'multitude of related illnesses.

"However, after so many of the plaintiffs and those similarlysituation showed the same effects of ozone overexposure, therebegan to be concessions by Concentra's medical care providers thatit was in fact ozone causing the plaintiffs' conditions."

Neither Concentra nor the Luxor are defendants. The onlydefendants are Ozone Solutions and Does 1-10.

Dominguez et al. say Ozone Solutions "concealed the known defects"and the "unreasonable risks" of its cleaning system and they wouldnot have agreed to use or even be near the ozone generators hadthey known of the dangers.

However, the laundrywomen say: "When inhaled, ozone can damage thelungs. Relatively low amounts can cause chest pain, coughing,shortness of breath and throat irritation. Ozone may also worsenchronic respiratory diseases such as asthma and compromise theability of the body to fight respiratory infections."

The result is increased work absences, and higher medical andhospitalization costs for workers exposed to high concentrationsof ozone, Dominguez says. (Graph 19)

PIERRE DUPONT: Faces Class Action Over Use of Unsafe Implants-------------------------------------------------------------Jennifer Pagliaro and Vanessa Lu, writing for Toronto Star, reportthat an 11-year-old boy from Richmond Hill is the key case in apotential class-action lawsuit against an Ottawa chiropodist whoallegedly profited from his patients' foot problems byrecommending unapproved and "unsafe" implants he developed.

Pierre Dupont, a registered chiropodist in Ontario with a historyof professional misconduct as a dentist in Quebec, is beingaccused of manufacturing a foot stent -- an implant used for flat-footedness and other ailments -- that was never approved by HealthCanada. According to the statement of claim filed in OntarioSuperior Court, Mr. Dupont then recommended the treatment andperformed the surgeries.

Mr. Dupont told the Star on May 26 that people should wait to passjudgment, "because all the facts are not on the table yet."

"Everything is not known in this affair at this point," he said."There's a lot of things that will be put to the knowledge of theappropriate person along the road. It's not my role to exposeeverything at this point. So this is why I prefer not tocomment."

The plaintiff named in the class action is Yuexiao (Patrick)Zhang, whose mother, Jing Liu, is making the claim on his behalf.Toronto-based law firm Thomson, Rogers, representing Ms. Liu, isseeking other patients of Dupont to possibly join the class-actionsuit.

Speaking to the Star in Mandarin, Ms. Liu explained her son couldrun and play before surgery on his right foot in July 2015, buthis feet were weak, and she and her husband wanted him to havebetter opportunities. After researching procedures, the couple-- who came to Canada in 2012 -- settled on Dupont's Ottawa FootPractice, whose website promises "simple surgery with excellentresults."

Ms. Liu claimed that, after the procedure, her son's foot is likea fake foot. She alleged he can't really run or jump anymore.

In the statement of claim, which contains allegations that havenot been proven in court, Ms. Liu alleges that her son "developedpain and discomfort in his right foot which caused irritation,irregular gait and loss of balance." The procedure was not doneon the boy's left foot.

The family is now trying to have the stent removed as soon aspossible and is waiting for referral to a surgeon who can performthe procedure.

The suit claims Mr. Dupont lacked the surgical and clinical skillsrequired to insert the implant and that he misrepresented thestent and the procedure to his clients.

"He showed a total, reckless, wanton and willful disregard for thehealth, safety and wellbeing of the plaintiff," the suit alleges.

The claim also names the College of Chiropodists of Ontario andthe Ottawa Foot Practice, run by Mr. Dupont. In an email, theCollege's registrar and chief administrative officer, FeleciaSmith, said the college had "retained counsel and will beresponding to the allegations in due course."

Mr. Dupont was previously a dentist for 10 years in Quebec, whereseveral patients made complaints against him. His license wasrevoked in 2004 by the provincial body that regulates dentists,following a disciplinary hearing that found he had failed to meetthe standards of care. Among other things, he failed to diagnosea patient's broken jaw and prescribed medication that was notrequired or in inappropriate doses, tribunal documents show.

After graduating from the podiatry program at the University ofQuebec in Trois-Rivieres and making attempts to legally practicepodiatry in Quebec -- a move challenged by that province's Collegeof Podatrists -- Mr. Dupont later moved to Ottawa and was given acertificate of registration to practice by the College ofChiropodists, according to the statement of claim.

Provincial regulations prevent the registration of a chiropodistwho has been found guilty of professional misconduct in anotherjurisdiction or in another health profession.

The suit alleges the college failed to follow those rules, tomonitor Mr. Dupont, or to properly respond to complaints.

Mr. Dupont told the Star that when he applied to the college hedisclosed his previous misconduct in an interview.

"They interview me. They do their due diligence," he said."Everything has been disclosed and presented to a committee, theadmission committee, and they made a decision accordingly."

Mr. Dupont declined to answer any more specifics about his careerand the finding of misconduct in Quebec.

The suit, launched in Newmarket court, seeks $15 million andclaims the plaintiffs are entitled to special damages, includingmedical and rehabilitation expenses.

Debra Clark, Brooksey Irvine, Reginald Morrissette, Melba Pearson,and Ezell Williams are all former employees of the defendants,Royal Transportation Company, Donald Fitzsimmons, DebraFitzsimmons, and Shannon Fitzsimmons. The plaintiffs filed theaction under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), seeking topursue a collective action on behalf of similarly situated driversemployed by the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that thedefendants have violated the FLSA by failing to pay overtime payfor actual overtime hours worked. The defendants maintained thatthe plaintiffs, and members of the putative class, are exempt fromovertime coverage.

The plaintiffs' filed a Motion for Conditional Certification of anFLSA Collective Action and for an Order for Notice to the Class.

Judge Cox concluded that the plaintiffs have met the requiredstandard at this stage in the proceedings, and ordered that theplaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification is granted to theextent that the court conditionally certifies the action as acollective action so that notice can be issued.

A full-text copy of Judge Cox's May 24, 2016 opinion and order isavailable at https://is.gd/dImHc4 from Leagle.com.

Members from Alliance San Diego, a social justice organization,joined representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union ofSan Diego and Imperial Counties and other organizations andactivists who were angered over police tactics at last May 27campaign stump by Trump.

Thousands of protesters gathered outside the San Diego ConventionCenter where Trump spoke. About 1,000 of those protestors gatheredMay 27 morning in the Barrio Logan neighborhood, about a mile awayfrom the convention center. They later marched downtown to showntheir disdain for the Republican presidential candidate who hascalled Mexican Americans "rapists" and called the Latino judge inone of two San Diego class actions against his now-defunct TrumpUniversity "a hater of Donald Trump."

Things did not get ugly until hours after Trump left the stage,when San Diego police clad in riot gear declared the designated"Free Speech Zone" outside the convention center an unlawfulassembly, started making arrests, and moved the last remainingprotesters toward the Barrio Logan neighborhood.

Police said the crowd behavior became unlawful when severalprotestors tried to breach a secured area and other protestorsbecame violent and physically confrontational.

Christian Ramirez, human rights director for Alliance, called thepolice conduct "outrageous" and said it "violated" the traditionof San Diego activists and police working together to ensure thesafety of residents.

"I brought my child with me and to have riot police and smalltanks in my neighborhood shows the huge disconnect between MayorFaulconer and Police Chief Zimmerman and the impact of themilitarization of police in America's finest city," Ramirez toldthe crowd.

Ramirez said the arrests and use of force was "an act ofprovocation" and could have been potentially "devastating" had thepolice clashed with residents in the neighborhood.

Organizer Kiki Ochoa said leaders of the protest told participantsbeforehand to be careful about their behavior so children,disabled people and elderly "abuelitas" could participate in themarch safely. The marchers made their way over to the conventioncenter at about 1:30 p.m. Friday, Ochoa said, and peacefullyprotested outside the venue until police declared an unlawfulassembly. The activist groups hired their own security guards tokeep people safe, but that still didn't stop the police from usingexcessive force on minors and other residents of the heavilyLatino-populated neighborhood, Ochoa said.

"What kind of training does the police have and what do they nothave and desperately need?" Ochoa said. "Why is it so easy tobring militarized police into the Latino community, but not gointo the Gaslamp?"

None of the protest organizers were arrested. At least 20 peoplein Barrio Logan were detained but not arrested, while three otherswere arrested in the neighborhood, Ramirez said. Minors under 18were among those detained and arrested, according to Ramirez.

According to the SDPD's Twitter page, 35 arrests were made duringthe Trump protest, with no property damage or injuries reported.

ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties Director Norma Chavez-Peterson said many San Diego residents are "completely shocked andoutraged" at the police presence at Trump's rally.

Chavez-Peterson pointed out that, when she helped organize thebiggest protest ever held in San Diego in 2006, which drew morethan 100,000 people, there was no "para-military" force by SDPDofficers. She also speculated that based on first-hand accountsof police officers moving pro-Trump supporters closer toprotestors, it may have caused tension and "didn't seem like aneffective tactic."

"Organizing peaceful protests has been part of our DNA for a longtime, but something went wrong May 27. We can do better. We havedone better," Chavez-Peterson said.

The ACLU is working to document first-hand accounts of whathappened and will help guide protestors who want to filecomplaints with the SDPD or file court complaints, according toChavez-Peterson.

SDPD Public Information Officer Scott Wahl said the department is"proud of the professionalism, restraint and patience" displayedby officers he said "provided a safe environment to allow for thefreedom of speech."

"Our decision to declare an unlawful assembly came as a result ofviolent behavior and unlawful acts within the crowd of protestors.We are very pleased with the outcome of May 27 event," he said.

Wahl did not return phone and email requests to confirm the numberof people arrested in the Barrio Logan neighborhood or otherdetails of what instructions officers were given.

-- denying, without prejudice to renewal at the close of discovery, the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and

-- denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion to "enter and continue plaintiffs motion for class certification."

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair DebtCollection Practices Act. The amended complaint alleges that inattempting to collect a debt allegedly incurred by the Plaintiff,the Defendant sent a letter that violates the FDCPA by failing tostate the amount of the debt. The amended complaint furtherasserts class action allegations on behalf of persons with NewYork addresses, who were sent a letter in the form of the one sentto the Plaintiff.

SIMON & SCHUSTER: Sued in N.Y. Over Low E-Book Royalty Payments---------------------------------------------------------------Sheldon Blau, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., and any related companies,Case No. 154249/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 19, 2016), alleges thatthe Defendants is engaged in a pattern and practice of paying thePlaintiff and others similarly situated royalty payments for thedistribution of licenses for electronic books, or "e-books," at arate for book "sales," or some other rate lower than that requiredfor "license" transactions.

Simon & Schuster, Inc. is a New York domestic corporation, engagedin the publishing business.

SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Group of Policyholders Files Amended Claim-------------------------------------------------------------Stuff.co.nz reports that a group of about 50 Canterbury homeownershope to return to the High Court to state their case again insurerSouthern Response.

The group of 46 Southern Response policyholders launched legalaction last year saying the Government-owned insurer hadmisrepresented policies, imposed delays in processing and settlingclaims and understated the true costs of rebuilds and repairs.

The case was rejected by the High Court in February, but the groupfiled an amended claim to the court on May 27.

Class action lawyer Grant Cameron said the new application metconcerns raised about the case in the High Court by Justice Manderin February.

"Justice Mander felt there was insufficient clarity about thecommonality of interests between members of the class to enablehim to grant the application, however we are confident the freshapplication meets that concern," he said.

"Over the past two months there has been an immense amount of workcompleted . . . we are confident that the court will see the highdegree of commonality on the majority of issues and that peripherydifferences can be easily case-managed by the court".

He said the claims in the case had also been amended.

"It now alleges that all policyholders in this action are a victimof an overarching strategy being maintained by Southern Responsewhich is designed to minimize its fiscal exposure. It does thisthrough a number of tactics and it is only through the means of aclass action that the pattern of misconduct can be easilyidentified."

In February, Mark O'Brien, QC, representing Southern Response,said the firm was committed to resolving claims and emphasizedthat Southern Response had received 7000 over cap claims.

"But there's only 46 in this class action."

SPECTRUM CENTER: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims---------------------------------------------------------------Bilaliyah Sabir, on behalf of herself and all others similarlysituated v. Spectrum Center, Inc., Educational Services ofAmerica, Inc., Chancelight, Inc., and Does 1 through 50,inclusive, Case No. RG16816404 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 19, 2016), isbrought against the Defendants for failure to pay all wages forall hours worked at the correct rates of pay.

The Defendants operate 25 schools and programs in California,Florida and Tennessee.

SYSTEM INC: Bid for Class Certification in "Bryan" Suit Denied--------------------------------------------------------------The Hon. Sandra J. Feuerstein denied without prejudice to renewalat the close of discovery the Plaintiff's motion for classcertification in the lawsuit titled ELIZABETH BRYAN, on behalf ofplaintiff and a class v. I.C. SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-06984-SJF-GRB (E.D.N.Y.).

On December 11, 2015, the Plaintiff, individually and on a behalfof a class, commenced the action against I.C. System, Inc.,alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.The complaint alleges that in attempting to collect a debtallegedly incurred by the Plaintiff, the Defendant sent a letterthat falsely published that it had an A+ rating from the BetterBusiness Bureau. The complaint further asserts class actionallegations on behalf of persons with New York addresses, who weresent a letter by the Defendant that contained the allegedly falsestatements.

Judge Donovan Frank of the U.S. District Court for the District ofMinnesota sided with Target in granting the retailer's motion todismiss earlier in May.

Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or FCRA, if an employerintends to obtain a report about a job applicant, the employermust notify the applicant. Such notification must be in aseparate document without any unrelated information.

The named plaintiff in the action, Minnesota resident Thomas J.Just, alleged Target included extraneous terms and conditions inits Consent & Disclosure document and in so doing, willfullyviolated the FCRA.

"Two non-binding advisory opinions by the FTC (Federal TradeCommission) suggest that limited information beyond the disclosureand authorization may be included in the disclosure document,including, for example, a brief description of the nature of thereports covered by the disclosure and authorization and astatement of the job applicant's right to request informationabout the nature and scope of the reports," Judge Frank wrote inhis May 12 opinion.

"Here, Target's Consent & Disclosure plainly includes more than astatement that a consumer report may be obtained for employmentpurposes and an authorization permitting procurement of thatreport. It does not, however, contain a liability waiver orrelease. And, Target argues, the information challenged by Justis 'part and parcel of providing a full disclosure and securing ameaningful authorization'; it is not extraneous informationintended to benefit Target at the expense of job applicants."

The judge said he need not decide whether Just plausibly states aclaim that Target violated the stand-alone disclosure requirementunder the FCRA because Just must also plausibly allege that anyviolation by Target was committed willfully.

Under the FCRA, statutory damages -- rather than actual damages-- are only available when a defendant's conduct is willful. Anyperson who willfully fails to comply with "any requirementimposed" is liable for statutory damages of $100 to $1,000.

Because Just does not claim actual damages, he must allegewillfulness in order to maintain his lawsuit, Judge Frank said.

"Because the federal courts of appeal, the FTC and the statutorytext provide insufficient guidance about the meaning of the FCRA'sstand-alone disclosure requirement, Target's reading of therequirement is not objectively unreasonable," the judge wrote inthe 13-page opinion. "Accordingly, if Target violated the FCRA'sstand-alone disclosure requirement, such violation was notwillful."

Because the court concluded that Target did not act willfully, anyproposed amendment of the complaint would be "futile," Judge Franksaid, dismissing the case with prejudice, meaning the plaintiff isbarred from filing another case on the same claim.

Just, who had applied for full-time work with Target multipletimes, most recently in 2014 and 2015, filed his class actioncomplaint against the Minneapolis-based retailer in the Minnesotafederal court in November 2015.

He argued that Target's Consent & Disclosure document -- whichgives a company permission to procure a background report -- isnot a stand-alone document that consists solely of the disclosureand authorization.

Just argued in his 10-page complaint that the document containslanguage that is "completely irrelevant" to the disclosure, andcould confuse an applicant about the purpose of the document.

The plaintiff's background check had revealed that he hadconvictions from 1993 and 1994.

Based on the information, Target withdrew a job offer it hadextended to Just.

THERANOS: Faces Second False Advertising Class Action-----------------------------------------------------Arielle Duhaime-Ross, writing for The Verge, reports that Theranoswas hit with a second class action lawsuit on May 26 -- one dayafter an angry customer filed the first.

The suit alleges that Theranos breached its contract withcustomers by "providing tests that were not of the promised highlevel of accuracy and quality." The lawsuit also goes afterTheranos for false advertising, not performing proper qualitycontrol, and for failing to use the fingerprick technologies thatit advertised to customers when drawing their blood, according tothe complaint.

The Verge contacted Theranos for comment. In response,spokesperson Brooke Buchanan sent The Verge the same statement shesent on May 25. "The lawsuit filed against Theranos is withoutmerit," she wrote in an email. "The company will vigorouslydefend itself against these claims."

Like the May 25 lawsuit, a single customer filed against Theranoson May 26 in the district of Northern California. The lawsuitseeks damages payments for customers, and payments for attorney'sfees. The suit also requests a court order to tell Theranos tostop using "unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair businesspractices." It's not yet clear if the lawsuit will move ahead; ithas not yet been certified, and may be combined with other casesas it proceeds.

This has been a particularly difficult 24 hours for the blood-testing startup. In addition to getting hit with the firstlawsuit, The Wall Street Journal reported on May 25 that thedrugstore chain Walgreens failed to verify that Theranos'technology worked before it partnered with the company in 2013.Theranos currently operates 40 clinics inside Walgreens locations.

TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR: Faces Drivers' Suit Over Illegal Fines---------------------------------------------------------------Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported thattoll roads, which make up 20 percent of the highways in OrangeCounty, Calif., collect millions of dollars in illegal fines byfailing to warn when a transponder is needed, a frustrated driversays in Santa Ana, Calif. class action.

Ebrahim E. Mahda sued the Transportation Corridor Agencies dba TheToll Roads on May 24 in Federal Court. The agency is a jointpowers authority legislatively created to build and operate OrangeCounty's toll roads.

Mahda claims that "these toll roads are operated in a manner thatmisleads the public, in violation of California law. Inparticular, the roads themselves are poorly marked, andunsuspecting consumers are subject to improper and unlawful finesbecause their cars are not equipped with an electronic toll payingtransponder known as FasTrak."

The offending highway include State Routes 73, 133, 241, and 261,Mahda says. He was nailed on Route 73 last November, without aFasTrak transponder, and says he did not know he needed one. Twoweeks later he received notice in the mail of a $6 for eachviolation, with recurring penalties of $57.50 if he did not pay byJan. 9.

By the time he could pay the fine, Mahda says, he owed $232.

FasTrak devices are mounted on windshields and communicate withtoll-charging and ticketing machines as they pass. Mahda claimsthat drivers like him are fined for evading tolls though they hadno idea, or fair warning, that they were doing so.

Mr. Engle alleges that Eskenazi Health Center has erroneouslysubjected him to incurred cost that should have been covered viathe Veterans' Affairs. For this reason, the Plaintiff contends,he cannot surmise that he is the only victim in this cause ofaction.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's May 24, 2016 summaryorder is available at https://is.gd/BzufNm from Leagle.com.

Owners and occupants of land near a pesticide factory in Bhopal,India, in several iterations of lawsuits, have sought reliefagainst UCC for injuries resulting from hazardous contaminantsattributed to the plant's inadequate waste management system. Thefactory was owned and operated by Union Carbide India Limited(UCIL), a corporation incorporated in India in 1934. A majorityof UCIL's stock, during the Bhopal plant's operations, from 1969to 1984, was owned by UCC, a U.S. corporation.

The plaintiffs, Jagarnath Sahu and several other similarlysituated property-owners (collectively, "Sahu"), have brought anaction to recover for property damage, alleging claims sounding innuisance, trespass, strict liability, and negligence. Building onthe record established in a separate suit filed in 2004 to recoverfor personal injuries, Sahu claimed new evidence established UCC'sresponsibility, and sought leave to take a deposition of a formerUCC employee, Lucas John Couvaras, to provide additional evidenceto oppose summary judgment, and to preserve his testimony in lightof his advanced age. The district court ruled that the evidencewas not sufficient to establish UCC's participation in thecreation of the injury on any theory of liability, denied therequest for a deposition, and dismissed the lawsuit.

The case is JAGARNATH SAHU, on behalf of themselves and all otherssimilarly situated, OHMWATI BAI, on behalf of themselves and allothers similarly situated, MOHAN LAL SEN, on behalf of themselvesand all others similarly situated, QAMAR SULTAN, on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situated, MEENU RAWAT, onbehalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, MAKSOODAHMED, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,KRISHNA BAI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarlysituated, KANTI DEVI CHAUHAN, on behalf of themselves and allothers similarly situated, RAGHUNATH VISHWAKERMA, on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situated, HARCHARAN CHAURASIA,on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,MOHAMMAD BAHADUR SHAH, on behalf of themselves and all otherssimilarly situated, SHASHI BHAGEL, on behalf of themselves and allothers similarly situated, KAMALA BAI SHRIVASTAV, on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situated, HARISHANKAR TOMAR,on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, SHANTIAIHRWAR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarlysituated, ASGARI BEE, on behalf of themselves and all otherssimilarly situated, ZAMIL KHAN, on behalf of themselves and allothers similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNION CARBIDECORPORATION, MADHYA PRADESH STATE, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-3087-cv (2nd Cir.).

UNITED STATES: 2 Subclasses Certified in Government Workers' Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------Judge Susan G. Braden of the United States Court of Federal Claimscertified two subclasses in the case, CILICIA A. DeMONS, et al.,Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 13-779 C (Fed.Cl.).

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the United States of America inthe United States Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C., andare asking for money damages as back pay plus interest for theamount of premium pay that they claim was not paid to all eligibleHybrid employees or specialized health care employees who file atimely claim form as class members.

On April 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for approval ofnotices to the class, approval of amendments to the classcertifications to reflect consolidation of the cases, and toappoint the class action administrator.

On May 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for leave towithdraw the April 29, 2016 motion and substituted a new jointmotion to approve notices to the class, approval of amendments tothe class certifications to reflect consolidation of the cases,and to appoint the class action administrator.

DeMONS Subclass One: All General Schedule employees, as defined by5 U.S.C. Section 2105, who were employed between July 1, 2012 andFebruary 28, 2016 by the Department of Veterans Affairs in one ofthe following occupations:

a. who regularly and customarily worked on a tour of duty anypart of which was within the period beginning 6 p.m. and ending 6a.m., and/or on a tour of duty any part of which was within 12:00midnight Friday and ending 12:00 midnight Saturday (not includingany Sunday hours); and

b. who received night differential pay of 10% and/or Saturdaypremium pay of 25% or more, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Sections7454(b)(1), (b)(2), for each such hour of service between 6 p.m.and ending 6 a.m., and/or for each such hour of service between12:00 midnight Friday and 12:00 midnight Saturday (not includingany Sunday hours); and

c. who received pay during periods of authorized paid leave,pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sections 6301-6391, for any part of a tour ofduty between 12:00 midnight Friday to 12:00 midnight Saturday (notincluding any Sunday hours) that was reduced in an amount equal tothe Saturday premium pay to which such employees would have beenentitled, if they performed regular and customary work onSaturdays instead of using authorized paid leave; and/ord. hybridemployees who were designated to receive premium pay on the samebasis as nurses, who received pay during periods of authorizedpaid leave, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sections 6301-6391, for any partof such tours of duty between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., that was reducedin an amount equal to the night differential pay that VA employeeswould have been entitled, if they performed regular and customarywork at night, instead of using authorized paid leave.

DeMONS Subclass Two: All General Schedule employees, as defined by5 U.S.C Sec. 2105, who were employed between July 1, 2012 andFebruary 28, 2016 by the VA in one of the following occupations:

a. who regularly and customarily worked on a tour of duty anypart of which was within the period beginning 12:00 midnightFriday and ending 12:00 Saturday; and

b. who received premium pay of 25% or more, pursuant to 38U.S.C. Section 7454(b)(3), for each such hour of service between12:00 midnight Friday and 12:00 midnight Saturday; and

c. who received pay during periods of authorized paid leave,pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sections 6301-6391, for any part of a tour ofduty from 12:00 midnight Friday to 12:00 midnight Saturday thatwas reduced in an amount equal to the Saturday premium pay,pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Section 7454(b)(3), to which such employeeswould have been entitled, if they performed their regular andcustomary work on Saturdays, instead of using authorized paidleave.

The Epiq Systems Inc. is certified as class action administrator.

On or before July 1, 2016, the administrator will provide asummary notice of the certification to each member of a subclass,designated herein, by postcard, to last known addresses. The costof the postcard and mailing will be paid by class counsel. Thesummary notice will refer to www.myleavepay.com, a websiteoperated and maintained by the administrator. The website willpost the court's official notice, and a copy of the claim that aputative class member may file by internet or mail to DeMons P.O.Box 4349, Portland, Oregon 97208-4349, no later than August 15,2016.

A copy of Judge Braden's memorandum opinion and order dated May20, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/gjeLIRfrom Leagle.com

Tom Mitsopoulos brought a class-action lawsuit against Valspar'sboard of directors for allegedly breaching their fiduciary dutiesby allowing Sherwin-Williams to acquire the company "withoutproviding stockholders with material information necessary for aninformed vote" on the merger.

That information is missing from the company's proxy statementfiled with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission last month,according to the May 24 lawsuit.

In a press release dated March 21, Valspar announced that thecompany was entering into a definitive agreement to merge withSherwin-Williams, and Valspar stockholders will get $113 pershare.

But that price could be adjusted, Mitsopoulos claims, becauseregulators may require Sherwin-Williams to divest assets tosatisfy antitrust concerns.

The merger agreement downplays this scenario.

"In what both companies believe to be the unlikely event thatdivestitures are required of businesses totaling more than $650million of Valspar's 2015 revenues, the transaction price would beadjusted to $105 in cash per Valspar share," a joint press releasestates. "Sherwin-Williams would have the right to terminate thetransaction in the event that required divestures exceed $1.5billion in 2015 revenues."

Ever since the announcement of the merger, Valspar's share pricehas leveled out at about $107 per share.

Based in Minnesota, paint maker Valspar has been in business since1806. Both Valspar and Sherwin-Williams are big players in theU.S. house paint market, selling their paints through big-boxretailers like Lowe's and Home Depot. According to a Bloombergreport, this may be cause for antitrust scrutiny.

Not only does Sherwin-Williams gain market share in the U.S. do-it-yourself paint market through the merger, but it also booststhe company's presence in the international markets and industrialcoatings markets, according to Bloomberg.

he Valspar board considered a merger deal with two other unnamedcompanies, but by late January the board concluded that "no othercompany could 'offer greater value and closing certainty' thanSherwin-Williams, [and so] the board determined that it would notcontact any additional parties for a potential strategictransaction," Mitsopoulos' lawsuit alleges.

And so on March 19, the Valspar board unanimously approved themerger agreement after reviewing "financial projections as well asthe fairness opinions prepared and provided by Merrill Lynch andGoldman Sachs," according to the complaint.

Although Valspar "describes the fairness opinions provided byMerrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs and the various valuation analysesperformed in support of these opinions," both financial advisors"relied on certain internal projections for fiscal years 2016-2020in rendering their fairness opinions," the complaint states.

Mitsopoulos claims the proxy discloses revenue, adjusted earningsbefore interest and taxes, and adjusted earning per share, butomits some of the internal projections used by Valspar's financialadvisors to recommend the merger.

According to the class-action complaint, the omissions include:"future stock prices and dividends per share, 'as reflected inValspar forecasts,' used in the present value of future stockprice and dividends analysis . . . unlevered free cash flow, 'asreflected in the Valspar Forecasts,' used in the discounted cashflow analysis . . . terminal year normalized free cash flow forValspar, 'as reelected in the Valspar forecasts,' used in thediscounted cash flow analysis . . . and the definitions of freecash flow and unlevered free cash flow used by Goldman Sachs andMerrill Lynch."

"Without this information, Valspar's public stockholders areunable to fully understand the analyses and, thus, are unable todetermine what weight, if any, to place of the fairness opinionrendered in support of the proposed transaction," the lawsuitstates.

As such, Mitsopoulos and the class seek injunctive and otherequitable relief for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

Mitsopoulos is represented by Brian Long of Rigrodsky & Long PA inWilmington, Del., and by Donald Enright of Levi & Korsinsky inWashington, D.C.

* Law Professors Support CFPB's Plan to Ban Class Action Waivers----------------------------------------------------------------C. Ryan Barber, writing for The National Law Journal, reports thatmore than 200 law professors and other scholars rushed out of thegate to back the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's plan toprohibit arbitration clauses preventing class actions, as theformal comment period on the proposal recently opened.

Calling the proposal "critically important to protect consumers,"the group of 210 professors submitted a letter on May 24 arguingthat class actions complement resource-strained state and federalagencies in enforcing the law.

The professors wrote that, by allowing financial-servicescompanies to "eradicate consumer class actions, we are allowingthese companies to insulate themselves from enforcement of ourlaws. This harms not only individual consumers but also thepublic at large."

The roster of signatories includes a nationwide selection ofexperts in consumer law, including Georgetown University LawCenter professor David Vladeck, a former director of the FederalTrade Commission's bureau of consumer protection.

The mere prospect of facing a class action can also detercompanies from misconduct, the professors said. "Companies engagein risk management calculations and are less likely to riskviolating consumer laws if they know they may be sued in classactions for such violations," the professors wrote.

In testimony before Congress and the CFPB, critics of the proposalhave argued that arbitration provides consumers an efficientalternative to lengthy class actions.

Those critics, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, contend that aban on class action waivers would have the effect of eliminatingarbitration in the financial sector.

But, citing the CFPB study, the professors wrote that consumersare rarely aware that they are subject to arbitration agreements,though millions are covered by such clauses. The CFPB study foundthat only a few hundred file individual arbitration claims eachyear, mostly for claims exceeding $1,000.

"In other words, a minuscule number of consumers bring individualarbitrations to recover low-dollar claims," the professors wrote.The CFPB study also found that consumers rarely bring lawsuits incourt, and in the letter, the professors wrote that "it is easy tosee why." For a consumer and a lawyer, they wrote, a small claimin not worth the trouble.

The professors also quoted this passage from a 2004 decision byJudge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the SeventhCircuit: "The realistic alternative to a class action is not 17million individual suits, but zero individual suits, as only alunatic or a fanatic sues for $30."

Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal on Aearo Indemnification Remains Pending----------------------------------------------------------------An appeal from a court ruling on the dispute relating to theindemnification of Aearo Holding Corp. remains pending, accordingto 3M Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Companypurchased the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of AearoTechnologies. Aearo manufactured and sold various products,including personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head,face, fall and certain respiratory protection products.

"As of March 31, 2016, Aearo and/or other companies thatpreviously owned and operated Aearo's respirator business(American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. andCabot Corporation ("Cabot")) are named defendants, with multipleco-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits invarious courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask andrespirator products and seek damages from Aearo and otherdefendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures toasbestos, silica-related, or other occupational dusts found inproducts manufactured by other defendants or generally in theworkplace.

"As of March 31, 2016, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary,had accruals of $21 million for product liabilities and defensecosts related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos andsilica-related claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well asfor settlements and judgments, is currently shared in an informalarrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and asubsidiary of Warner Lambert and their respective insurers (the"Payor Group"). Liability is allocated among the parties based onthe number of years each company sold respiratory products underthe "AO Safety" brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division ofAmerican Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure ofthe individual plaintiff. Aearo's share of the contingentliability is further limited by an agreement entered into betweenAearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, solong as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabotwill retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearoagainst, any product liability claims involving exposure toasbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior toJuly 11, 1995. Because of the difficulty in determining how long aparticular respirator remains in the stream of commerce afterbeing sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claimsarising out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposureto asbestos, silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997.With these arrangements in place, Aearo's potential liability islimited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use ofrespirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silicaproducts on or after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has electedto pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed toadditional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995 periodcovered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinueits participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longerable to meet its obligations in these matters.

"In March 2012, Cabot CSC Corporation and Cabot Corporation fileda lawsuit against Aearo in the Superior Court of Suffolk County,Massachusetts seeking declaratory relief as to the scope ofCabot's indemnity obligations under the July 11, 1995 agreement,including whether Cabot has retained liability for coal workers'pneumoconiosis claims, and seeking damages for breach of contract.In 2014, the court granted Aearo's motion for summary judgment ontwo claims, but declined to rule on two issues: the specificliability for certain known coal mine dust lawsuits; and Cabot'sclaim for allocation of liability between injuries allegedlycaused by exposure to coal mine dust and injuries allegedly causedby exposure to silica dust. Following additional discovery, theparties filed new motions for summary judgment. In February 2016,the court ruled in favor of Aearo on these two remaining issues,and ordered that Cabot, and not Aearo, is solely responsible forall liability for the coal mine dust lawsuits under the 1995agreement. Cabot has appealed.

"Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo'sliabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to:(i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii)significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii)significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims,(iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received,(v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in thelaw and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significantchanges in the liability allocation among the co-defendants,(viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Groupincluding exhaustion of available insurance coverage limits,and/or (ix) a determination that the interpretation of thecontractual obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share ofliability is inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impactof these potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo'sshare of liability for these existing and future claims. If any ofthe developments described above were to occur, the actual amountof these liabilities for existing and future claims could besignificantly larger than the amount accrued.

"Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number ofclaims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity ofallocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group,and the several possible developments that may occur that couldaffect the estimate of Aearo's liabilities, the Company cannotestimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo's liabilitymay exceed the accrual the Company has established."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Had $39MM Insurance Receivables at March 31---------------------------------------------------------------3M Company's receivable for insurance recoveries related to therespirator mask/asbestos litigation was $39 million, according tothe Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "The Company estimates its respiratormask/asbestos liabilities, including the cost to resolve theclaims and defense costs, by examining: (i) the Company'sexperience in resolving claims, (ii) apparent trends, (iii) theapparent quality of claims (e.g., whether the claim has beenasserted on behalf of asymptomatic claimants), (iv) changes in thenature and mix of claims (e.g., the proportion of claims assertingusage of the Company's mask or respirator products and allegingexposure to each of asbestos, silica, coal or other occupationaldusts, and claims pleading use of asbestos-containing productsallegedly manufactured by the Company), (v) the number of currentclaims and a projection of the number of future asbestos and otherclaims that may be filed against the Company, (vi) the cost toresolve recently settled claims, and (vii) an estimate of the costto resolve and defend against current and future claims.

"Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimateof its liabilities. These developments include, but are notlimited to, significant changes in (i) the number of futureclaims, (ii) the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legalcosts of defending these claims and in maintaining trialreadiness, (iv) changes in the mix and nature of claims received,(v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law andprocedure applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financialviability of other co-defendants and insurers.

"As a result of the Company's cost of resolving claims of personswho claim more serious injuries, including mesothelioma and othermalignancies, the Company increased its accruals in the firstquarter of 2016 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $11million. In the first quarter of 2016, the Company made paymentsfor legal fees and settlements of $14 million related to therespirator mask/asbestos litigation. As of March 31, 2016, theCompany had accruals for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of$141 million (excluding Aearo accruals). This accrual representsthe low end in a range of loss. The Company cannot estimate theamount or upper end of the range of amounts by which the liabilitymay exceed the accrual the Company has established because of the(i) inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims thathave not yet been asserted or the time period in which futureclaims may be asserted, (ii) the complaints nearly always assertclaims against multiple defendants where the damages alleged aretypically not attributed to individual defendants so that adefendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint andseveral liability, which can vary by state, (iii) the multiplefactors described above that the Company considers in estimatingits liabilities, and (iv) the several possible developmentsdescribed above that may occur that could affect the Company'sestimate of liabilities.

"As of March 31, 2016, the Company's receivable for insurancerecoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was$39 million. The Company estimates insurance receivables based onan analysis of its policies, including their exclusions, pertinentcase law interpreting comparable policies, its experience withsimilar claims, and an assessment of the nature of each claim andremaining coverage. The Company then records an amount it hasconcluded is likely to be recovered. Various factors could affectthe timing and amount of recovery of this receivable, including(i) delays in or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extentto which insurers may become insolvent in the future, and (iii)the outcome of negotiations with insurers and legal proceedingswith respect to respirator mask/asbestos liability insurancecoverage.

"The Company has unresolved coverage with claims-made carriers forrespirator mask claims. The Company is also seeking coverage underthe policies of certain insolvent insurers. Once those claims forcoverage are resolved, the Company will have collectedsubstantially all of its remaining insurance coverage forrespirator mask/asbestos claims."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Faces Suits by 2,110 Claimants at March 31--------------------------------------------------------------3M Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, innumerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to representapproximately 2,110 individual claimants, according to theCompany's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "As of March 31, 2016, the Company is a nameddefendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits invarious courts that purport to represent approximately 2,110individual claimants, compared to approximately 2,130 individualclaimants with actions pending at December 31, 2015.

"The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by andcurrently pending against the Company allege use of some of theCompany's mask and respirator products and seek damages from theCompany and other defendants for alleged personal injury fromworkplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or otheroccupational dusts found in products manufactured by otherdefendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of thelawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against theCompany generally allege personal injury from occupationalexposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by theCompany, which are often unspecified, as well as productsmanufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Companypremises.

"The Company's current volume of new and pending matters issubstantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpairedclaimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levelsthan in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging moreserious injuries, including mesothelioma and other malignancies,will represent a greater percentage of total claims than in thepast. The Company has prevailed in all ten cases taken to trial,including eight of the nine cases tried to verdict (such trialsoccurred in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007, and 2015), and anappellate reversal in 2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to theCompany. The remaining case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by thecourt at the close of plaintiff's evidence, based on the court'slegal finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficientevidence to support a jury verdict. The plaintiff in the 2015trial has filed an appeal to the Missouri Court of Appeals.Briefing is complete and a decision from the court is pending.

"The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings thatits respiratory protection products are effective as claimed whenused in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable toestablish that their medical conditions, even if significant, areattributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates thatclaims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier toresolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it thereforebelieves the average cost of resolving pending and future claimson a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than itexperienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims wereasserted by medically unimpaired claimants.

"As previously reported, the State of West Virginia, through itsAttorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Companyand two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products inthe Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia and amended itscomplaint in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, butunspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement ofthe costs allegedly incurred by the State for worker'scompensation and healthcare benefits provided to all workers withoccupational pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages. Thecase was inactive from the fourth quarter of 2007 until late 2013,other than a case management conference in March 2011. In November2013, the State filed a motion to bifurcate the lawsuit intoseparate liability and damages proceedings. At the hearing on themotion, the court declined to bifurcate the lawsuit. No liabilityhas been recorded for this matter because the Company believesthat liability is not probable and estimable at this time. Inaddition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss orrange of loss given the lack of any meaningful discovery responsesby the State of West Virginia, the otherwise minimal activity inthis case and the fact that the complaint asserts claims againsttwo other manufacturers where a defendant's share of liability mayturn on the law of joint and several liability and by the amountof fault, if any, a jury might allocate to each defendant if thecase is ultimately tried."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Katy Continues to Face Claims at April 1---------------------------------------------------------Katy Industries, Inc., continues to face asbestos claims,according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedApril 1, 2016.

The Company states, "There are a number of product liability,asbestos and workers' compensation claims pending against theCompany and its subsidiaries. Many of these claims are proceedingthrough the litigation process and the final outcome will not beknown until a settlement is reached with the claimant or the caseis adjudicated. The Company estimates that it can take up to tenyears from the date of the injury to reach a final outcome oncertain claims. With respect to the product liability, asbestosand workers' compensation claims, the Company has provided for itsshare of expected losses beyond the applicable insurance coverage,including those incurred but not reported to the Company or itsinsurance providers, which are developed using actuarialtechniques. Such accruals are developed using currently availableclaim information, and represent management's best estimates,including estimated legal fees, on an undiscounted basis. Theultimate cost of any individual claim can vary based upon, amongother factors, the nature of the injury, the duration of thedisability period, the length of the claim period, thejurisdiction of the claim and the nature of the final outcome."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Continues to Defend Suits at April 1-----------------------------------------------------------Kaman Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended April 1, 2016.

The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies, theCompany and/or one of its subsidiaries may be named as a defendantin lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure toasbestos integrated into certain products sold or distributed bythe Company and/or the named subsidiary. A substantial majority ofthese asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance orother forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment.The rest have been resolved for amounts that are not material tothe Company, either individually or in the aggregate. Based oninformation currently available, we do not believe that theresolution of any currently pending asbestos-related matters willhave a material adverse effect on our business, financialcondition, results of operations or cash flows."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Had $50.6MM Accrued Liability at April 1----------------------------------------------------------------Colfax Corporation had $50,623,000 accrued asbestos-relatedliability as of April 1, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarterly period ended April 1, 2016.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available athttps://is.gd/i8Z0rH

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Faced 482 Suits at March 31------------------------------------------------MRC Global Inc. was named a defendant in approximately 482lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly periodended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuitsthat plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuriesthat exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and theirfamily members have brought these lawsuits against a large volumeof defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestoscontaining-products or equipment or activities that allegedlycaused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffstypically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third-party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc.subsidiary purportedly distributed. As of March 31, 2016, we arenamed a defendant in approximately 482 lawsuits involvingapproximately 1,106 claims. No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in ajudgment against us to date, with a majority being settled,dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party insurancehas substantially covered these claims, and insurance shouldcontinue to cover a substantial majority of existing andanticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded aliability for our estimate of the most likely settlement ofasserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for ourestimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts ofrecovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcomeof these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, thelikelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claimsand legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on ourconsolidated financial statements is remote."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 13K Cases as of March 25----------------------------------------------------------There were 13,000 asbestos-related cases against Mallinckrodtpublic limited company as of March 25, 2016, according to theCompany's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarterly period ended March 25, 2016.

The Company states, "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976,the Company is also named as a defendant in personal injurylawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containingmaterials. A majority of the cases involve product liabilityclaims based principally on allegations of past distribution ofproducts containing asbestos. A limited number of the cases allegepremises liability based on claims that individuals were exposedto asbestos while on the Company's property. Each case typicallynames dozens of corporate defendants in addition to the Company.The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injuryor bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to productscontaining asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos caseshas been limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos.Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage ofthese claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissedby the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict ina trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends tocontinue to defend these lawsuits. When appropriate, the Companysettles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend allasbestos claims have been immaterial. As of March 25, 2016, therewere approximately 13,000 asbestos-related cases pending againstthe Company.

"The Company estimates pending asbestos claims and claims thatwere incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries,which are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensedconsolidated balance sheets. The Company's estimate of itsliability for pending and future claims is based on claimsexperience over the past five years and covers claims eithercurrently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years.The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded relatedto these matters. While it is not possible at this time todetermine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these asbestos-related proceedings, the Company believes, given the informationcurrently available, that the ultimate resolutions of all knownand anticipated future claims, after taking into account amountsalready accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will nothave a material adverse effect on its financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Xylem Still Indemnified by ITT at March 31-----------------------------------------------------------Xylem Inc. said its former parent, ITT Corporation, continues toindemnify the company from asbestos-related claims, according tothe company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

The Company states, "From time to time claims may be assertedagainst Xylem alleging injury caused by any of our productsresulting from asbestos exposure. We believe there are numerouslegal defenses available for such claims and would defendourselves vigorously. Pursuant to the Distribution Agreement amongITT, Exelis and Xylem, ITT has an obligation to indemnify, defendand hold Xylem harmless for asbestos product liability matters,including settlements, judgments, and legal defense costsassociated with all pending and future claims that may arise frompast sales of ITT's legacy products. We believe ITT remains asubstantial entity with sufficient financial resources to honorits obligations to us.

"As part of our 2011 spin-off from our former parent, ITT, ExelisInc. and Xylem will indemnify, defend and hold harmless each ofthe other parties with respect to such parties' assumed orretained liabilities under the Distribution Agreement and breachesof the Distribution Agreement or related spin agreements. Theformer parent's indemnification obligations include asserted andunasserted asbestos and silica liability claims that relate to thepresence or alleged presence of asbestos or silica in productsmanufactured, repaired or sold prior to October 31, 2011, theDistribution Date, subject to limited exceptions with respect tocertain employee claims, or in the structure or material of anybuilding or facility, subject to exceptions with respect toemployee claims relating to Xylem buildings or facilities. Theindemnification associated with pending and future asbestos claimsdoes not expire. Xylem has not recorded a liability for materialmatters for which we expect to be indemnified by the former parentor Exelis Inc. through the Distribution Agreement and we are notaware of any claims or other circumstances that would give rise tomaterial payments from us under such indemnifications. On May 29,2015, Harris Inc. acquired Exelis. As the parent of Exelis,Harris Inc. is responsible for Exelis's indemnificationobligations under the Distribution Agreement."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Plaintiff Verdict----------------------------------------------------------------HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Ohio appellate court hasaffirmed a compensatory verdict entered in favor of an asbestosplaintiff, but reversed a trial court order that grantedHoneywell's directed verdict on punitive damages, opining thatenough evidence had been presented to support a finding thatBendix "manifested a flagrant disregard of the safety of personswho might be harmed by the product in question."

In the Ohio Court of Appeals, 8th District, Cuyahoga County,remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a new trial onplaintiffs' claim for punitive damages.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Court Remands Asbestos Suit-----------------------------------------------------HarrisMartin Publishing Reported that a Missouri federal court hasremanded an asbestos action, noting that none of the remainingdefendants in the lawsuit have opposed the plaintiff efforts.

In the May 19 order, the U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Missouri said that the defendants that had joined inthe removal efforts had since been dismissed from the case.

Plaintiff Sheree Murray filed the complaint, contending that herhusband, Leroy Murray, was exposed to asbestos-containing productsmanufactured by the defendants. As a result of the exposure,Murray developed lung cancer, the plaintiff said.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tetney Man Dies of Asbestos-related Cancer-----------------------------------------------------------Louth Ledger reported that a coroner has recorded that a Tetneyman died as a result of 'industrial disease', after developingcancer caused by historic exposure to asbestos in the workplace.

Last May 25, an inquest at Spilsby Coroner's Court heard thatRaymond Pickering Moffatt died at his home on September 8 lastyear.

Mr Moffatt, 90, who lived in Tetney Lock, had suffered frommalignant mesothelioma (a form of cancer associated with exposureto asbestos) in the later years of his life, and had undergonebiopsies and cancer treatment in the months before his death.

Mr Moffatt's daughter, Wendy Fulcher, attended the inquest. Sheexplained that, following her father's diagnosis, he mentioned toher that he had been exposed to asbestos in the workplace whileemployed by the Bahrain Petroleum Company as a maintenanceengineer between 1946 and 1966.

This information about Mr Moffatt's employment history had notpreviously been formally recorded, and Ms Fulcher repeated thestatement under oath at the request of the assistant Coroner forCentral Lincolnshire, Richard Marshall.

The Coroner noted that Mr Moffatt had received a letter from theDepartment for Work and Pensions in July 2015, in which they hadaccepted an industrial injuries claim that had been submitted byMr Moffatt in relation to his illness.

Recording a verdict of industrial disease, the coroner noted thatMr Moffatt had lived a long life despite his illness, and offeredhis condolences to the family.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mystery Surrounds Asbestos Death of Pensioner--------------------------------------------------------------Kathie Griffiths, writing for Telegraph & Argus, reported thatmystery surrounds the death of a 71-year-old retired cleaner whohad never knowingly come into contact with asbestos, but died froma cancer usually caused by the deadly mineral.

Pauline Verity of Bradford Road, Keighley, worked at a butcher'smaking sausages, then at Bingley's Andertons Engineering makingfastening clips before spending more than 20 years at Morton CloseNursing Home in Crossflatts. The final two years of her workinglife were as a cleaner at Trinity All Saints in Bingley.

Assistant Bradford coroner Mary Burke recorded an open conclusioninto Mrs Verity's death because there was no proof the divorceehad ever been exposed to levels of asbestos which could havecaused her mesothelioma.

The inquest heard how, after Mrs Verity's diagnosis in 2012, shetold her lifetime partner, Margaret Randall, and medical expertsshe could not recall coming into contact with asbestos.

"It's correct to say an individual may not have known there hadbeen exposure to asbestos but they may have previously not beenaware of all the circumstances. It's a condition which can betriggered decades after such exposure," said Ms Burke.

"When she [Mrs Verity] was diagnosed she was asked if she wasaware of any exposure but couldn't recall any. It doesn't mean shehad not been exposed to asbestos. There is recognised in medicalliterature a view that there is a small percentage of cases thatmay be naturally occurring. That may be the case for Mrs Veritybut I can't be sure so I'm recording an open conclusion into herdeath."

Mrs Verity, whose son and granddaughter were with her when shedied at home on May 23, had seen her GP about shortness of breath.

Until falling ill she had been fit enough to walk her dogs forhours, the inquest was told, but doctors had told her after thediagnosis that it was unlikely she would reach her 70th birthday.

Ms Burke said in the vast majority of mesothelioma cases, asbestosexposure was the only known cause of the terminal condition and itusually affected people who worked with the substance many yearsbefore its dangers were known.

Mrs Verity had three bouts of chemotherapy but had got to thestage when she did not want more treatment, the inquest was alsotold.

Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that develops mainly in thelining of the lungs. More than 2,600 people are diagnosed with thecondition each year in the UK, with most cases diagnosed in peopleaged 60 to 80.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Discovered at McLachlan Park------------------------------------------------------Jarrard Potter, writing for The Daily Examiner, reported that workhas resumed at McLachlan Park after it was halted when asbestoswas found in soil being excavated at the site.

Clarence Valley Council works and civil director Troy Andersonsaid contractors using excavators uncovered a section of brokenwater pipe, which contained asbestos, in existing soil lastWednesday.

"We stopped work and put measures in place to make sure none ofthe asbestos could become airborne," he said.

"This included wetting the site and covering the stockpile."

Mr Anderson said the Environmental Protection Authority has beennotified and an asbestos control plan has been approved by theEPA.

"We will follow that control plan and the removal of the asbestos-containing material should be routine," he said.

Mr Anderson said asbestos-contaminated spoil from the site wouldbe taken to a designated asbestos control point at the regionallandfill.

"I commend the contractors and everyone involved for the measuredand responsible way this has been handled," he said.

"Our number one priority has been public safety, and that has beenachieved."

Now the State of NSW, on behalf of the Dockyard, and Amaca PtyLtd, on behalf of James Hardie, are arguing their share ofresponsibility for compensation, in a NSW Dust Diseases Tribunalcase involving eight former Newcastle Dockyard workers.

Judge William Kearns slammed James Hardie for "decades of silence"that left thousands of Newcastle Dockyard workers "the mostvulnerable" and "most uninformed of all people dealing with"asbestos products needed for ship building.

He found Newcastle Dockyard and its owner, the State of NSW, knewthe dangers of asbestos in 1962 because of a Dockyard asbestoscase in the Industrial Relations Commission.

History: The State Dockyard at Newcastle where thousands ofworkers were exposed to the risks of asbestos-related conditionsuntil asbestos was phased out by 1977.

In a decision on May 20 Judge Kearns found the State responsiblefor the lion's share of compensation that has already been paid tothe eight workers, at an average of $400,000 to each worker, withAmaca responsible for up to 40 per cent of compensation in thecase of one worker.

A number of the eight workers have already died.

But any court case is too late for Mariea Foxford, of Merewether,whose husband John died of mesothelioma in 2007 after making astatement tendered in the case of the eight Dockyard workers, butbefore he could seek compensation following his years as aNewcastle Dockyard purchasing officer.

"He was too sick, too quickly, to claim, and it was too much forme at the time to even think about a solicitor," Mrs Foxford said.

"It was terrible. It's a terrible way to die. He would have beenhere for probably another 20 years if he didn't get mesothelioma,because he was always fit as a fiddle. The doctor told him he hadit and he sort of fell to pieces."

For Ken Searle, of Tighes Hill, who gave evidence in the case, thelegacy of years at the Dockyard from 1973 is pleural plaque -- amarker of past asbestos exposure -- and the on-going threat of amore serious asbestos-related condition.

"There was no concern about the asbestos when I started. The dustwould fly up in the air and they'd use a broom to just push itabout."

A doctor's confirmation that he had pleural plaque was a shock,but "I figure if I don't die from that I'll go from somethingelse, won't I?"

He knew a lot of former Dockyard workers who "don't go to thedoctor because they don't want to know they've got it".

Mr Searle, 69, was a friend of the late Kevin Allars, the leadplaintiff in the case of the eight workers.

"He was about eight years younger than me. He was a fit bloke anda surfer. He came out of the surf one day saying he couldn'tbreathe. A doctor told him to go home and get his affairs in orderbecause he only had two months to live. We buried him a few monthslater," Mr Searle said.

In a speech in 2013 Judge Kearns said more than 200 people whosought compensation under a NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal processfrom 2005 were dead before their matters were completed.

Newcastle lawyer Gerard McMahon, from Turner Freeman, has handledup to 30 asbestos cases a year for the past 16 years, includingmany former Dockyard cases.

He represented Mr Allars and two of the other eight Dockyardworkers in the case before Judge Kearns, that returns to thetribunal next week. Two of the three men are dead.

He said the case was "a positive thing" because it might give someguidance in future cases where the State of NSW, companies likeAmaca and other defendants argue their share of responsibility incompensation cases.

While there had been hundreds of Newcastle Dockyard cases, thenumbers were declining because of the time since asbestos wasphased out, between 1975 and 1977.

The number of "third wave" cases -- where people including thechildren of workers developed asbestos-related conditions -- hadincreased over the past 15 years, he said.

The general building industry was "probably the biggest killer"when it came to asbestos deaths, Mr McMahon said.

Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australian president Barry Robsonsaid James Hardie "demonstrates a corporate mindset that continuesto see victims as a liability, rather than people".

"I still get calls from workers that they've just been diagnosed,"he said.

About 700 Australians each year die of mesothelioma. They die, onaverage, about 155 days after they're diagnosed, Mr Robson said.

"Asbestos-related conditions are a bigger killer than the roadtoll but you don't hear enough about it, because it's not a sexydisease."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumpster Left in Detroit Neighborhood---------------------------------------------------------------Dave Spencer, writing for Fox2Detroit.com, reported that aneighborhood on Detroit's east side is concerned after a dumpstermarked with asbestos warnings was left in the middle of theirstreet.

"It actually says danger, tight on the front," Negus Vu says in avideo he took when New Era Detroit discovered the dumpster. Youcan watch parts of that video in the report in the video playerabove from FOX 2's Dave Spencer.

In homes built prior to 1970, asbestos was a common fire retardantbut it was banned in 1977 for its link to lung cancer -- which iswhy this warning label was taken seriously.

"When we had to read it and look we said, 'Wow, it's kind of toolate now. We don't have any protective gear. We are just walkingdown the street,'" Vu says.

Photo Asbestos dumpster left in Detroit neighborhood for weeksFOX 2 learned the dumpster was put there by a city contractorweeks ago.That's when this neighbor was put on notice.

The house that was there at 5151 Burns is nothing more than avacant lot now. It was knocked down, according to the city, on May12. But before they did any demolition, they moved that dumpsterinto place as a way to keep people safe.

Brian Farkas, the director of special projects for the DetroitBuilding Authority, issued this statement on the dumpster:

"In instances where the presence of asbestos is determined, highlytrained workers go into the house prior to it being knocked downto remove the asbestos and place it into a specialized and sealedcontainer to protect neighbors from any exposure."

But if the house was removed on May 12, why was this contaminatedcontainer still in place weeks later? In fact, if the New EraDetroit march seen in video hadn't happened, would it still bethere?

"Fortunately we were there to see this and film it and put it outthere on social media, which brought light to the situation," saysVu.

FOX 2 to call the city, and the following day the dumpster wastaken away, according to the city.

"The sealed dumpster should have been removed by the contractormore quickly than it was. Once we became aware of the issue, thedumpster was removed the next day," Farkas said.

"That's not the only time that we seen something like that. Butit's the first time that the video has got out," Vu says.

The city says this is an effort to keep the public safe and theyencourage people to make sure that's exactly whats happening.

"Anytime a neighbor has any questions or concerns about one of ourdemolition projects, we encourage them to call 844-DET-DEMO rightaway," Farkas says.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Westmont Hilltop High School---------------------------------------------------------------Fox8TV.com reported that construction workers for the WestmontHilltop High School say they found asbestos in the basement of thebuilding.

The Johnstown Tribune Democrat reports plumbing contractorsspotted what they are calling suspect material on the ground whileinstalling sanitary sewer lines. A follow up report confirmed thematerial is asbestos containing insulation. This despite twohazardous material studies done before renovations began earlierthis year. Contractors say taking care of the asbestos will meanabout a 40 thousand dollar cost to the District.

Special Electric Co. failed to warn Johns-Manville Corp. about thehighly toxic nature of the raw crocidolite asbestos it sold in the1970s, and couldn't reasonably expect that company to warndownstream users of the dangers, the court said.

The ruling upheld a court of appeals decision that SpecialElectric was wrongly granted a judgment in its favor for theexposures of William Webb, who handled asbestos-containing pipe inthe 1970s and developed mesothelioma in 2011.

Under the doctrine announced by the court, a supplier of toxic rawmaterials may discharge its duty to warn if it knows asophisticated user is aware or should be aware of the product'sdangers, and it "reasonably relies on the purchaser to conveyappropriate warnings to downstream users who will encounter theproduct."

Jody Shaffer, individually and as special administrator of theestate of Charles Shaffer, deceased, filed a complaint on May 3 inSt. Clair County Circuit Court against the defendants, allegingthat they failed to exercise ordinary care and caution for thesafety of decedent.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that decedentCharles Shaffer was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers,causing him to develop lung cancer, which ultimately led to hisdeath on June 8, 2014. The plaintiff holds the defendantsresponsible because they allegedly included asbestos fibers intheir products when defendants knew or should have known that saidasbestos fibers are toxic and poisonous, failed to provideadequate instructions and warnings, and failed to conduct tests onthe asbestos containing products manufactured.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment in herfavor in a sum in excess of $50,000, punitive damages and suchother relief that the court may deem appropriate. She isrepresented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian &Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16L244

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. Air Liquid Blames Death on Exposure-------------------------------------------------------------Michael Abella, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reportedthat an estate special administrator is suing Air Liquid SystemsCorporation, Aldrich Company, Arvinmeritor, Inc., Aurora PumpCompany, and many other companies, citing alleged failure to warn,negligence and insufficient measures taken to prevent injuries, inconnection with asbestos exposure.

Jo Michele Grondy, individually and as special administrator ofthe estate of Thomas H. Wyllie, deceased ,filed a complaint on May10 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against the defendants,alleging that they allegedly failed to exercise ordinary care andcaution for safety.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on June 27,2014, the plaintiff and decedent first became aware that decedenthad developed mesothelioma, which was wrongfully caused byexposure to and inhalation of asbestos fibers. The decedent diedof mesothelioma on Oct. 15, 2014, the suit says. The plaintiffholds the defendants responsible because they allegedly includedasbestos fibers in their products when they knew or should haveknown that said asbestos fibers are toxic and poisonous, failed toprovide adequate instructions and warnings, and other allegations.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment againstthe defendants in an amount to exceed $50,000, punitive damagesand for such other and further relief as the court may deemappropriate. She is represented by Ethan A. Flint of Flint LawFirm LLC in Glen Carbon.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16L254

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Probe Into Wife's Asbestos-related Death---------------------------------------------------------Christine Sexton, writing for Basildon Canvey Southend Echo,reported that a grieving husband has appointed lawyers to find outhow his wife died of cancer caused by exposure to deadly asbestos.

Paul Anthony, from Benfleet, has instructed expert asbestos-related disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to find out how hisbeloved 58-year-old wife Tracey came in contact with deadlyasbestos which caused her terminal cancer, mesothelioma.

Mrs Anthony died just weeks after her diagnosis is appealing forher former colleagues to come forward to help with aninvestigation into her exposure to the deadly substance years ago.

Mrs Anthony was diagnosed with mesothelioma on July 2, 2015 anddied just seven weeks later on August 22. The disease onlydevelops decades after exposure to asbestos, usually throughworking in close proximity to the substance when it is disturbed.

Mr Anthony, 54, said: "Tracey's death was all so sudden. One monthshe had her diagnosis and the next she was gone.

"I know nothing can bring her back to me, but I just need to knowhow she came in to contact with asbestos."

Mrs Anthony -- then Tracey McLaughlin -- left school in 1973 andwent on to work for many firms in and around south Essex.

Specialist asbestos lawyers at Irwin Mitchell are keen to hearfrom anyone who worked with her at any point during her career.

Ian Bailey, an expert asbestos-related disease lawyer at IrwinMitchell, representing Paul, said: "We see first-hand the terribleconsequences that asbestos exposure can have on so many lives, notjust victims affected by mesothelioma but also their loved ones.

"Paul has been left devastated by Tracey's sudden death and isunderstandably desperate for answers.

"We would be keen to hear from anyone who worked with her acrossher roles in Purfleet, London, Southend and Benfleet.

"Any information could prove vital in helping Paul get the answershe deserves."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Refines Parameters of Mine Cleanup Area------------------------------------------------------------Justin Franz, writing for Flathead Beacon, reported that the EPArecently expanded the boundaries of OU3, an area that includes theformer W.R. Grace and Co. mine site and the surrounding forest.The entrance station to the former mine, pictured on June 1, 2015.

The Environmental Protection Agency has expanded the parameters ofthe cleanup area around the former asbestos mine near Libby thatwas the epicenter of one of the biggest Superfund projects inAmerican history.

While the Superfund cleanup in Libby and Troy is winding down,cleanup efforts are just beginning around the shutteredvermiculate mine just north of Libby. Since it closed, thousandsof people have been sickened and hundreds of died because ofprolonged exposure to the asbestos laden vermiculate produced inLincoln County until 1990.

Last year, the EPA and other local agencies tested dirt and barkaround the mine to see how much asbestos it contained. They alsoconducted a small controlled burn to see what type of toxins wouldbe released into the air in the event of a wildfire near the oldmine. The testing showed that there is more hazardous materialthan previously believed northeast of the mine site. Progress saidmore testing is planned for this summer.

"That boundary could move as additional data comes in thissummer," she said.

W.R. Grace is currently working with the EPA on preparing twoseparate feasibility studies that will look at how OU3 should becleaned up. One study will focus on the forested area around themine and the other will include the mine site and nearby rivers.Progress said officials wanted to do a feasibility study on theforested area sooner because of the concern about wildfires.Officials hope to finish both studies in late-2016 or 2017. Oncethose studies are completed, the EPA will put together a proposedcleanup plan and then issue a record of decision.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Sophisticated Intermediary" Defense Adopted-------------------------------------------------------------Don Willenburg, Esq. -- dwillenburg@gordonrees.com -- Gordon &Rees LLP, in an article for Lexology.com, wrote that on May 24 theCalifornia Supreme Court formally adopted the "sophisticatedintermediary" defense for product suppliers. The courtsignificantly restricted applicability of the defense, however,and ruled that there was insufficient evidence in this case thatJohns-Manville qualified as such an intermediary.

Webb v. Special Electric Co., Inc. articulated the defense asfollows: "a [product] supplier may discharge its duty to warn endusers about known or knowable risks in the use of its product ifit: (1) provides adequate warnings to the product's immediatepurchaser, or sells to a sophisticated purchaser that it knows isaware or should be aware of the specific danger, and (2)reasonably relies on the purchaser to convey appropriate warningsto downstream users who will encounter the product."

Perhaps the most significant hurdle to use of the defense in thefuture is the requirement that "a product supplier must show notonly that it warned or sold to a knowledgeable intermediary, butalso that it actually and reasonably relied on the intermediary toconvey warnings to end users."

The challenge posed by that requirement was exemplified here,where the Supreme Court ruled that Special Electric, a 2-personbroker of raw crocidolite asbestos, had a duty to warn asbestosbehemoth Johns-Manville and the downstream users of Johns-Manvilleproducts that incorporated Special Electric-brokered raw material.In part, this reflected a welcome understanding about thedivergent toxicities of the different minerals classified togetheras asbestos. "Although the record clearly shows Johns-Manville wasaware of the risks of asbestos in general, no evidence establishedit knew about the particularly acute risks posed by thecrocidolite asbestos Special Electric supplied."

Webb identified four other reasons why the evidence did notjustify the trial court's decision to grant a defense JNOV in theface of a jury verdict finding negligence.

1. "The evidence is disputed about whether Special Electricconsistently provided warnings to Johns-Manville during therelevant time frame." Note that it is not just "warnings," but"consistent warnings."

2. "[P]laintiffs presented evidence that at least one SpecialElectric salesperson told customers crocidolite was safer thanother types of asbestos fiber, when the opposite was true. If thejury credited this evidence, it may have found it unreasonable forSpecial Electric to believe Johns-Manville was so sophisticatedthat a warning about the particular dangers of crocidoliteasbestos was not called for."

3. Further, "the record does not establish as a matter of lawthat Special Electric actually and reasonably relied on Johns-Manville to warn end users like William Webb about the dangers ofasbestos. We recognize that direct proof of actual reliance may bedifficult to obtain when, as in the case of latent disease, thematerial was supplied to an intermediary long ago. However, actualreliance is an inference the factfinder should be able to drawfrom circumstantial evidence about the parties' dealings."

4. "[T]he jury could have reasonably determined that anyreliance on Johns-Manville would have been unjustified. Plaintiffspresented testimony from a former Johns-Manville employeecriticizing the company's handling of asbestos warnings andasserting it had failed to warn its own workers about the hazardsof asbestos before the mid-1970s."

While this evidence may be slim, it was enough to support thejury's finding of negligence and thus to overrule the trialcourt's grant of JNOV to the defense. The evidence in the case mayalso have been sufficient to support a jury finding that SpecialElectric was entitled to rely on the sophisticated intermediarydefense, but the issue was presented only to the court and not tothe jury.

Webb overruled an earlier Court of Appeal decision that hadrejected the sophisticated intermediary defense on the rationalethat "that doctrine, where it applies at all, applies only if amanufacturer provided adequate warnings to the intermediary." Webbruled that "[t]his assertion cannot be reconciled with ouranalysis in Johnson [v. American Standard, the key California"sophisticated user" decision]. . . .Insofar as it expresses adifferent view,Stewart v. Union Carbide Corp. . . . isdisapproved." So in at least some cases a defendant that providesno warnings can rely on the sophisticated intermediary defense.

A footnote that is off the main point is nevertheless a troublingsign for product liability defendants, because it appears to allowvery speculative evidence about whether a plaintiff everencountered a defendant's product. "Plaintiffs introduced evidencethat Webb was exposed to dust from Johns-Manville productscontaining trace amounts of crocidolite at roughly the same timeSpecial Electric was supplying crocidolite asbestos to Johns-Manville. While evidence of the link could be stronger, it isnonetheless sufficient for the jury to have found that SpecialElectric's asbestos was a substantial factor in causing Webb'smesothelioma." "[E]vidence of the link could be stronger" is anunderstatement. This footnote portends both an easier path forplaintiffs to "prove" exposure, and a court not willing to putmuch "substantial" in "substantial factor."

The Illinois Supreme Court issued a supervisory order directingthe lower court to hear the appeal in the case of Dale and IreneJeffs who sued last year on mesothelioma claims. Dale Jeffs, nowdeceased, had worked as an insulator for various contractors atvarious sites from 1968-1995, including time at Ford's plant inMichigan.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Maune firm in St. Louis.

Ford, represented by attorneys at the Greensfelder firm inBelleville, moved to dismiss last June, arguing that there is noalleged Illinois exposure occurring during Jeffs' time working forFord.

Associate Judge Stephen Stobbs denied Ford's motion last November,relying on a statement made by the company to the Illinois SupremeCourt expressing its substantial contacts with the state.

"Ford is one of the world's leading automotive manufacturers. Fordmanufactures and assembles automobiles across six continents andprovides related products and services. Ford conducts substantialbusiness in Illinois and operates as assembly plant in Chicagothat manufactures several vehicles, including the Taurus, MKS,Police Interceptor, and Explorer. Ford employs over 4,000 peopleat the Chicago Assembly Plant. In the past five years, Ford hasinvested over half a billion dollars in its business operations inIllinois."

Stobbs concluded that Ford "has availed itself of the protectionof the Illinois Courts and the benefits of Illinois law and by itsown admission conducts substantial, not de minimus, business inIllinois.

"Ford's contacts with the State of Illinois are substantial,therefore significantly more than the minimum contacts required byfederal due process standards."

Ford cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Daimler case,arguing that there is no basis to exercise general personaljurisdiction in Illinois for the case at hand.

In Daimler, the court held that "'a court may assert jurisdictionover a foreign corporation to hear any and all claims against [it]only when the corporation's affiliations with the State in whichsuit is brought are so constant and pervasive as to render [it]essentially 'at home' in that forum State.'"

Ford's principal place of business is in Michigan and its state ofincorporation is Delaware.

Ford also argued that the plaintiff's reliance on personaljurisdiction by consent, pursuant to the Illinois BusinessCorporation Act, is misplaced.

Stobbs was unconvinced.

He held that while Ford's corporate offices are in Michigan, ithas a certificate of authority to conduct business in Illinois,owns property in Illinois, has authorized dealers in Illinois,employs people in Illinois and maintains a registered agent toaccept service of process in Illinois.

He wrote that Ford voluntarily conducts regular business inIllinois and has done so since 1922. The defendant has alsolitigated numerous cases in this state, including other asbestoscases in Madison County, without objecting to personaljurisdiction.

"Considering all the factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff hasmet her burden of establishing jurisdiction over this Defendantand that the exercise of jurisdiction, in this case, is notinconsistent with notions of fair play and substantial justice,the fundamental consideration in finding constitutionaljurisdiction," Stobbs concluded.

Madison County Circuit Court case number 15-L-533

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oregon Jury Sets Record with $8.75MM Award-----------------------------------------------------------Bergman Draper Ladenburg on May 26 announced a landmark verdict ina lawsuit brought on behalf of David and Patricia Hoff ofBeaverton, Oregon. Mr. Hoff was exposed to a deadly carcinogen inthe 1970s when his work as a carpenter brought him into contactwith asbestos-containing drywall joint cement during commercialconstruction projects.

In August 2015, three years after his retirement, Mr. Hoff wasdiagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lung.Mesothelioma does not present until decades after initialexposure. The disease is caused by breathing microscopic asbestosfibers and even short exposures can cause cancer many years later.Mesothelioma is not curable and, despite aggressive treatment, Mr.Hoff was too ill to testify at trial.

The jury found Kaiser Gypsum, the manufacturer of the jointcement, negligent in failing to warn workers about the dangers ofasbestos used in their products. The jury also found Kaiser Gypsumstrictly liable for the sale of a defective, unreasonablydangerous product. Three other companies involved with similarproducts reached out of court settlements before the case wassubmitted to the jury for deliberation.

Bergman Draper Ladenburg's trial team of Brian Ladenburg, CraigSims and Kaitlin Wright began working with the Hoffs during thefall of 2015 and noted the decision to go to trial reflected atremendous commitment by the Hoff family. "The Hoffs wanted toensure that companies realize they will be held accountable forexposing workers to toxic substances that cause cancer," explainedCraig Sims. "The jury reinforced this message, but nothing canmake up for the negligent disregard for the lives of workers whoused their products."

Kaiser Gypsum manufactured asbestos-containing joint cement intheir plant in Seattle, Washington. These products were banned bythe Consumer Products Safety Commission in 1978 because of thehealth risks of high asbestos fiber release during their use.Evidence was presented at trial, however, showing that the companyknew about the risks associated with asbestos at least a decadeearlier. Internal Kaiser documents indicated that Kaiser was awareof the link between asbestos and mesothelioma as early as 1965,yet Kaiser never included the link to cancer on any warnings onits products and continued to sell them without a cancer warninguntil 1978.

Brian Ladenburg explained the critical importance of maintainingaccountability of exposing workers to asbestos when such exposureswere known to cause cancer, even though the exposures took placedecades ago. New cases of mesothelioma are diagnosed at a rate of2,500-3,000 per year, almost all associated with past asbestosexposure.

The victory was the result of a strong collaborative effort by theBergman Draper Ladenburg trial team. Ladenburg and Sims tried thecase with Bergman Draper Ladenburg attorney Kaitlin Wright overthe course of three-and-a-half weeks before the Hon. Judith A.Matarazzo of the Multnomah County Circuit Court. All threeattorneys played critical roles during a lengthy and challengingtrial.

About Bergman Draper Ladenburg

Bergman Draper Ladenburg (www.bergmanlegal.com) is a PacificNorthwest law firm with offices in Seattle and Portland thatfocuses on representing individuals and families who have beenharmed by powerful interests. For more than 18 years it hasprotected the interests of asbestos victims in proceedingsinvolving some of the largest manufacturers of asbestos products.The firm focuses on zealously advocating on behalf of cancervictims who were exposed to asbestos.

Firm founder Matthew Bergman was a top negotiator for twogroundbreaking settlements: a nationwide $5.1 billion settlementwith Owens Corning, of which $61 million was set aside for PugetSound-area claimants; and a $4.3 billion settlement withHalliburton, which allotted $30 million for asbestos claimants inthe region. For individual clients the firm has collected over$630 million in settlements and verdicts. Bergman Draper Ladenburgattorneys speak at national and international conferences andindustry engagements on all areas of asbestos law.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. High Court Rules for Exposed Worker-----------------------------------------------------------Eric Needs, writing for Legal Reader, reported that the CaliforniaState Supreme Court rules for worker exposed to asbestos,reinstating a multimillion-dollar jury verdict for the family of aworker who inhaled asbestos dust from his job and later died oflung cancer. The ruling provided some legal protection, but not inthis case, to suppliers of dangerous products who rely onmanufacturers to warn consumers.

From 1969 to 1979 William B. Webb worked as a warehouseman andtruck driver for a company in Los Angeles County that shippedcement piping containers of crocidolite, the most dangerous formof asbestos. Around 10 times per year he delivered pipes where heinhaled dusty reside with no warning of the hazards. In 2011 Webbwas diagnosed with mesothelioma, a fatal lung cancer caused byasbestos, and died after he and his wife filed suit.

The defendants include Special Electric Co., which supplied theasbestos without a warning label, and the pipe manufacturers, thenow-bankrupt Johns-Manville Corp., which only until the 1980s werewarnings were included, according to the court testimony.

A jury found both companies at fault, awarding Webb's family $5million in damages, however the trial judge overturned the verdicta against Special Electric, saying the supplier had no duty towarn users like Webb because it should have been able to rely onJohns-Manville to recognize the dangers and provide the warnings.The state's high court unanimously disagreed.

The court said suppliers of dangerous but legal products mustprovide warnings to workers and consumers who may be exposed tothe dangers. The warnings are not required, but when someone elsein the chain of distribution is aware of the dangers and isreasonably trusted by the supplier to provide the warnings, saidthe court.

But in this case, while Johns-Manville knew of the risks posed byasbestos, there was no evidence that the manufacturer knew thecrocidolite from Special Electric was seven times more likely asother forms of asbestos to cause cancer, said the court. It alsosaid at least one sales representative from Special Electric toldcustomers that crocidolite was safer than other forms of asbestos.

"The record does not establish . . . that Special Electricactually and reasonably relied on Johns-Manville to warn end-userslike William Webb about the dangers of asbestos," Justice CarolCorrigan said in the ruling reinstating the jury verdict.

Ted Pelletier, who represented Webb's family, said the ruling is avictory for "victims everywhere of hazardous products at the handsof manufacturers and suppliers" and provides "a very limitedexception" for some suppliers.

James Parker, the lawyer for Special Electric, said the company isdisappointed by the outcome, butt the court recognizes thesuppliers of dangerous products can avoid liability when they canprove the manufacturers "are sophisticated and know of thedangers."

Plaintiffs, who are husband and wife Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr.,and Barbara Arbogast, sued 27 defendants -- of whom twenty-fourremain in the case -- and alleged they, as manufacturers and/ordistributors of various products, caused Charles Arbogast to beexposed to asbestos, which led to his diagnosis of mesothelioma.The complaint contains four counts, including Count I (strictliability), Count II (negligence), Count III (aiding and abettingand conspiracy), and Count IV (loss of consortium). Plaintiffsdemand compensatory damages in excess of $75,000.

Various motions are pending that, if granted, will streamline thecase considerably. Plaintiffs have stated they do not oppose themotions, or parts thereof, that are subject of this memorandum. Inaddition, Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence of aiding andabetting and conspiracy in opposition to any motion for summaryjudgment. The Court infers, then, that Plaintiffs are not pursuingthose claims against any Defendant and will grant partial judgmenton that basis. If Plaintiffs believe the Court's view as to theiraiding and abetting and conspiracy claims is in error, then theymay file a motion with supporting evidence asking for a revisionof this ruling.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Default Judgment in "Barbarino" Granted----------------------------------------------------------------Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County,granted the motion for a default judgment on liability in the casecaptioned JOAN BARBARINO, individually and as Executrix of theEstate of ROY BARBARINO, deceased Plaintiff, v. BASF CATALYSTS,LLC et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190072/14, 2016 NY Slip Op30840(U)(N.Y.Sup.), and referred the issue of the amount ofdamages to a special referee.

Plaintiff, whose deceased husband was employed by the New YorkCity Transit Authority as a transit bus body mechanic, wasdiagnosed with mesothelioma in 2014. Plaintiff moves for a defaultjudgment against R.C.A. Rubber Company ("RCA") pursuant to CPLRSection 3215. While plaintiff does not ask for a specific amountof damages, she attaches a proposed judgment in the amount of$2,100,000. Alternatively, plaintiff seeks a default on liabilityand an inquest on damages.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 5, 2016 is available athttps://is.gd/POKB6I from Leagle.com.

This matter is before the Court on the Discovery Disputes broughtto the Court's attention on April 29, 2016. Defendant Crane Co.objected to the expert disclosures filed by Plaintiffs on March18, 2016 (Doc. 337), arguing that they failed to comply withFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). At the April 29, 2016conference, Plaintiffs raised disputes as to Requests to Produceand Interrogatories served on October 7, 2015. In particular,Plaintiffs state that Defendant Crane Co. failed to produce Navycontracts that may be pertinent to their experts' opinions. Inlight of these disputes, this Court held an in person hearing onMay 6, 2016 in which Plaintiffs and Defendants appeared bycounsel.

A full-text copy of the Order dated May 10, 2016 is available athttps://is.gd/AaKOyM from Leagle.com.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Amtrak's Protectve Order Bid Partially Denied--------------------------------------------------------------Chief Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann of the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of New York granted inpart and denied in part Amtrak's (National Railroad PassengerCorporation) motion to compel and denied in substantial part theInsurers' motions for a protective order in the case captionedCERTAIN UNDERWRITERS at LLOYD'S, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONALRAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. 14-CV-4717(FB)(E.D.N.Y.).

In this declaratory judgment action, plaintiff-insurers seek,inter alia, a determination as to whether a series of liabilityinsurance policies, issued to defendant National RailroadPassenger Corporation ("Amtrak") more than three decades ago,obligates plaintiff-insurers to reimburse Amtrak for costsincurred in connection with environmental waste allegedly found onAmtrak's property.

Currently pending before the Court are certain aspects of Amtrak'smotion to compel discovery, as well as a motion for a protectiveorder filed by plaintiff-insurers concerning Amtrak's entitlementto production of reinsurance agreements under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv)of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP").

A full-text copy of the Memorandum and Order dated May 16, 2016 isavailable at https://is.gd/tCJMpf from Leagle.com.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Reverses Summary Judgment in "Botts"--------------------------------------------------------------The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversedthe district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded thecase captioned ROGER BOTTS and CAROL BOTTS, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-35007 (9thCir.) for further proceeding.

Roger and Carol Botts appeal the district court's grant of summaryjudgment to the government.

The district court erred in finding that Botts failed to produceevidence from which a finder of fact could reasonably concludethat asbestos exposure at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard resultingfrom violations of the Navy's mandatory rules after March 1970 wasa substantial factor in causing Roger Botts' mesothelioma.

A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated May 16, 2016 is availableat https://is.gd/zSk0NE from Leagle.com.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Objection to Spoliation Instruction Sustained--------------------------------------------------------------In the case styled KATHY BOYER, individually and as SpecialAdministrator of the Estate of Milton Boyer, Plaintiff, v.WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendant. No. 14-cv-286-wmc (W.D. Wis.),Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court forthe Western District of Wisconsin sustained defendant WeyerhaeuserCompany's objection to plaintiff's spoliation instruction.

Plaintiff Kathy Boyer submitted a proposed spoliation inferenceinstruction, along with a hard hitting brief in support of thatinstruction, which asserts that the evidence supports a findingthat defendant Weyerhaeuser Company acted in bad faith in losingor destroying many documents about the use of asbestos materialsand of asbestos emissions into the community. In response to thatbrief, defendant Weyerhaeuser served a Rule 11 motion, whichcontended that plaintiff significantly misrepresented defendant'sdiscovery production. Apparently, the serving of this Rule 11motion prompted plaintiff to file an amended brief, because it isseveral pages shorter than her original filing and omits certaininformation, including most notably a list of documents plaintifforiginally contended "Weyerhaeuser possessed and then caused to bedestroyed or lost."

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated May 5, 2016 isavailable at https://is.gd/tneNVo from Leagle.com.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review Daubert Motions Ruling---------------------------------------------------------------Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court forthe Western District of Wisconsin denied several asbestosplaintiffs' "motion for reconsideration and clarificationregarding February 19, 2016, decision and, alternatively, forleave to amend complaints."

While not all of the bases apply to each of the cases, theplaintiffs, as a group, seek reconsideration of one or more of thefollowing rulings: (1) the court's grant of summary judgment basedin part on defendant Weyerhaeuser's Daubert motion as toplaintiffs Jacobs, Masephol and Seehafer; (2) "extending" theexclusivity provision of the Wisconsin's Workers Compensation Actto an employee's take-home asbestos exposure; and (3) the court'sgrant of summary judgment in Weyerhaeuser's favor on plaintiffs'private nuisance claims.

Judge Conley also granted in part and denied in part DefendantWeyerhaeuser's motions to strike the plaintiffs' reply briefs.

The cases are KATHY BOYER, Individually and as SpecialAdministrator on behalf of the Estate of Milton Boyer, Plaintiff,v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendant; BRIAN HECKEL, Individually andas Special Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Sharon Heckel,Plaintiff, v. CBS CORP., GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., METROPOLITAN LIFEINSURANCE COMPANY, and WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendants; DIANNEJACOBS, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of theEstate of Rita Treutel, Plaintiff, v. RAPID AMERICAN CORPORATION,and WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendants, RAPID AMERICAN CORPORATION,Cross-claimant, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Cross-defendant; KATRINAMASEPHOL, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf ofthe Estate of Richard Masephol, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSERCOMPANY, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants;VIRGINIA PRUST, Individually and as Special Administrator onbehalf of the Estate of Valmore Prust, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSERCOMPANY, and METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants;JANICE SEEHAFER, Individually and as Special Administrator onbehalf of the Estate of Roger Seehafer, Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSERCOMPANY, Defendant.; and THERESA SYDOW, Individually and asSpecial Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Wesley Sydow,Plaintiff, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, and METROPOLITAN LIFEINSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Nos. 14-cv-286-wmc, 13-cv-459-wmc,12-cv-899-wmc, 14-cv-186-wmc, 14-cv-143-wmc, 14-cv-161-wmc, 14-cv-219-wmc (W.D. Wis.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated May 5, 2016, isavailable at https://is.gd/Tb1Ymg from Leagle.com.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser's Bid in Limine Partially Granted---------------------------------------------------------------In the case captioned KATHY BOYER, individually and as SpecialAdministrator of the Estate of Milton Boyer, Plaintiff, v.WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, Defendant, No. 14-cv-286-wmc (W.D. Wis.),Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court forthe Western District of Wisconsin granted in part, denied in part,and reserved in part Defendant Weyerhaeuser Company's motions inlimine.

Judge Conley also denied Plaintiff Kathy Boyer's motion in limineto reconsider rulings on government regulations as evidence ofnegligence; granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motionsin limine; granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motionfor leave to file supplemental expert reports.

Plaintiff filed three motions in limine specific to Boyer'sclaims. First, plaintiff seeks an order excluding evidence orargument that plaintiff Kathy Boyer has received, has beenentitled to receive, or has applied for disability benefits.Plaintiff argues that this evidence is not material to any issueof liability, and that it is also immaterial to damages because ofthe collateral source rule. Defendant opposes the motion, arguingthat the evidence is material to damages because it will correctany jury inference that Kathy Boyer "either could not work due toher husband's illness, or was previously a homemaker by choicesuch that she brought no income into the home. Defendant furtherargues that the evidence is not barred by the collateral sourcerule.

Second, Plaintiff seeks an order excluding any comment, argumentor evidence that any of plaintiff's witnesses, including CharlesReno, filed any past grievances or workers' compensation claimsagainst Weyerhaeuser. Plaintiff contends that this evidence is notrelevant, and in anticipation of defendant's opposition, furtherargues that any relevance is outweighed by the risk of confusionand waste of time. For its part, defendant responds that thisevidence is highly relevant to each witness's credibility andbias.

Third, in a separately-filed motion styled "motion in limine,"plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court's June 2, 2015,opinion and order preventing plaintiff from relying onEnvironmental Protection Agency regulations in establishing thestandard of care. In that order, the court granted defendant'smotion to dismiss plaintiffs' nuisance claims on the basis thatthe Clean Air Act preempts state law nuisance claims, at least "tothe extent that plaintiffs intend to rely on NESHAP [NationalEmission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants] or otherregulatory standards under the CAA to prove negligent conductunder either a private or public nuisance claim." Plaintiffspreviously moved for reconsideration of that decision, which thecourt also denied.

Despite the court's instruction not to re-file the same motions inlimine, defendant did just that, albeit in an abundance of cautionto ensure that its arguments were preserved. More appropriately,defendant identifies a few, specific nuances by which it seeks todifferentiate this court's rulings in Pecher. Some of defendant'smotions also concern evidentiary challenges not resolved fully inPecher. The court gives further consideration to some of thesemotions, while finding the others not worth additional discussion.

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated May 5, 2016 isavailable at https://is.gd/Y0M94e from Leagle.com.

Former employees at a glass and bulb manufacturing plant broughtthis action against their employer, Philips Electronics NorthAmerica Corporation and its Dutch parent company, KoninklijkePhilips, N.V. ("KPNV"), for injuries arising from exposure tohazardous chemicals during their employment. The district courtdismissed the employees' claims against KPNV for want of personaljurisdiction, dismissed their claims against Philips asstatutorily barred, and declined to award them costs in servingKPNV process. The employees appeal those rulings, while KPNV andPhilips seek sanctions.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 9, 2016 is available athttps://is.gd/Zytjgr from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff and his wife commenced this action against, amongothers, Ford Motor Company ("Ford USA"), Ford Motor Company, Ltd.("Ford UK") and Henry Ford & Son, Ltd. ("Ford Ireland") allegingstrict products liability under the theories of defective designand failure to warn. After discovery, Ford USA moved for summaryjudgment seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground that FordUSA did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the parts inquestion, pointing out that they were manufactured, produced,distributed and sold by its wholly-owned subsidiary, Ford UK. FordUSA further moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) (7) arguing that the complaint should be dismissed for failureto state a cause of action because it was devoid of anyallegations supporting a claim that the court should "pierce thecorporate veil" such that Ford USA could be held derivativelyliable for the acts of Ford UK.

Plaintiff countered that Ford USA was "actively involved" in thedesign, specification, production and sale of Ford productsthroughout the world, including the United Kingdom, such that itcould be held liable for the role it "independently played" inplacing the products into the stream of commerce and in failing towarn plaintiff.

The Supreme Court, while holding that there was no basis uponwhich to pierce the corporate veil, nonetheless determined thatbecause plaintiff produced evidence showing that Ford USA"exercised significant control over Ford [UK] and Ford Ireland andhad a direct role in placing the asbestos-containing products towhich [plaintiff] was exposed into the stream of commerce," therewas a question of fact concerning Ford USA's "directresponsibility for plaintiff's injuries."

The Appellate Division affirmed the order of Supreme Court denyingFord USA's motion for summary judgment.

The Appellate Division granted Ford USA leave to appeal to thisCourt pursuant to CPLR 5713, and certified the question of whetherthat portion of the order that affirmed the order of Supreme Courtwas properly made.

A full-text copy of the Decision dated May 3, 2016 is available athttps://is.gd/1Q6Lpq from Leagle.com.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.